Hansard, 2010-04-26

Under the provision of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2010) To (2010) Mr Gan Kim Yong 16 Mar 18 Mar Mr Hawazi Daipi 16 Mar 21 Mar Mr Liang Eng Hwa 16 Mar 18 Mar 24 Mar 25 Mar 19 Apr 23 Apr Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 21 Mar 26 Mar 27 Apr 27 Apr 28 Apr 02 May Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 21 Mar 24 Mar 31 Mar 01 Apr 06 Apr 09 Apr 16 Apr 20 Apr 20 Apr 27 Apr Mr Sin Boon Ann 22 Mar 24 Mar 01 Apr 06 Apr 04 May 05 May Dr Lam Pin Min 24 Mar 28 Mar Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong 24 Mar 26 Mar 05 Apr 09 Apr Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim 25 Mar 28 Mar 13 Apr 20 Apr Mr Charles Chong 26 Mar 01 Apr 07 Apr 09 Apr Mr Lim Hng Kiang 26 Mar 30 Mar 06 Apr 09 Apr 27 Apr 27 Apr Dr Lim Wee Kiak 26 Mar 02 Apr Mr Seng Han Thong 26 Mar 28 Mar Column: 7 Mdm Cynthia Phua 27 Mar 31 Mar 07 Apr 11 Apr 20 Apr 23 Apr 28 Apr 04 May Er Lee Bee Wah 29 Mar 01 Apr 06 May 08 May Mr Lim Swee Say 29 Mar 01 Apr Mr Teo Ser Luck 29 Mar 31 Mar 21 Apr 25 Apr Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 29 Mar 30 Mar 13 Apr 17 Apr 29 Apr 05 May 07 May 09 May Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 29 Mar 05 Apr 18 Apr 25 Apr Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 30 Mar 04 Apr 04 May 06 May Mr Lee Yi Shyan 30 Mar 31 Mar 06 Apr 10 Apr Mr Mah Bow Tan 31 Mar 01 Apr 15 Apr 17 Apr 23 Apr 23 Apr 04 May 07 May Mr Baey Yam Keng 01 Apr 06 Apr Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo 02 Apr 07 Apr 09 Apr 17 Apr 01 May 09 May 10 Jul 26 Jul Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 02 Apr 04 Apr 06 Apr 07 Apr 13 Apr 17 Apr 20 Apr 26 Apr Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 02 Apr 04 Apr 17 Apr 19 Apr Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 03 Apr 04 Apr 30 Apr 04 May Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 03 Apr 09 Apr Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 05 Apr 05 Apr 07 Apr 09 Apr 14 Apr 22 Apr 01 May 10 May Mr Ang Mong Seng 06 Apr 10 Apr 06 May 09 May Mr Heng Chee How 06 Apr 10 Apr 14 Apr 16 Apr Dr Teo Ho Pin 06 Apr 10 Apr 23 Apr 25 Apr Column: 8 Mr Goh Chok Tong 07 Apr 11 Apr 17 Apr 23 Apr Mrs Josephine Teo 07 Apr 10 Apr 15 Apr 15 Apr 18 Apr 27 Apr 11 May 14 May 30 May 03 Jun 10 Jun 13 Jun 18 Jun 20 Jun Mr Seah Kian Peng 07 Apr 10 Apr 21 Apr 24 Apr Mr Matthias Yao Chih 08 Apr 11 Apr Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 09 Apr 10 Apr 14 Apr 17 Apr 20 Apr 23 Apr 28 Apr 29 Apr Mr Zainudin Nordin 10 Apr 11 Apr 21 May 27 May RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 11 Apr 15 Apr Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 13 Apr 15 Apr Mr Michael Palmer 13 Apr 13 Apr 15 Apr 23 Apr Miss Penny Low 13 Apr 17 Apr 20 Apr 26 Apr 02 May 10 May 23 May 26 May 30 May 06 Jun Mr Inderjit Singh 14 Apr 17 Apr Mr Alvin Yeo 15 Apr 17 Apr Dr Ng Eng Hen 18 Apr 20 Apr Mr Teo Chee Hean 19 Apr 23 Apr 10 May 13 May Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 21 Apr 21 Apr Mr S Iswaran 21 Apr 23 Apr Mr Wee Siew Kim 21 Apr 23 Apr 07 May 07 May 10 May 11 May 18 May 18 May 23 May 25 May Mdm Halimah Yacob 22 Apr 25 Apr Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 23 Apr 23 Apr Ms Indranee Rajah 26 Apr 26 Apr Dr Balaji Sadasivan 28 Apr 05 May 16 May 22 May Dr Lee Boon Yang 30 Apr 08 May Column: 9 Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 07 May 09 May Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 17 May 22 May 31 May 02 Jun Dr Ong Seh Hong 21 May 25 May 29 May 01 Jun

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

22nd March,2010 (1) Stamp Duties (Amendment) Bill (2) Supply Bill 2010 (3) Supplementary Supply (FY 2009) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Singapore had provided the Romanian authorities with the evidence related to the accidents involving the Romanian diplomat Dr Silviu Ionescu; (b) whether Singapore has been assured by the Romanian authorities that charges will be

brought against Dr Ionescu in Romania; and (c) whether Singapore can take legal action against Dr Ionescu for casting aspersions on the integrity of Singapore's judicial system.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo): Since I last updated this House on 22nd February 2010 on the hit-and-run accident involving the Romanian Embassy vehicle, there have been a number of important developments.

On 31st March 2010, the State Coroner found that Dr Silviu Ionescu was the driver responsible for the accident on 15th December 2009 and furthermore, that he was acting in his private and not official capacity at that time. The Romanian government has officially withdrawn Dr Ionescu from Singapore with effect from 5th January 2010. This means that he is no longer an accredited diplomat in Singapore.

Taken together with the findings of the Coroner’s Inquiry, this has significantly changed the situation. The privileges and immunities which diplomats enjoy during their posting in a country to which they are accredited are different from the privileges and immunities they enjoy after leaving their country of accreditation at the end of their posting. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations clearly recognises these differences. Article 39.1 of the Vienna Convention states that a diplomat’s privileges and immunities begin from the moment he enters the country of his posting. These privileges and immunities include freedom from detention and arrest and immunity from the jurisdiction of the criminal courts of the receiving State. As long as a diplomat remains accredited to a receiving State, his privileges and immunities in that State would apply to all his actions, whether official or private.

When Dr Ionescu left Singapore on 17th December 2009, he was still a

diplomat officially accredited to Singapore. Therefore, as I explained to Members on 22nd February 2010, Dr Ionescu could not be prevented from leaving Singapore as he enjoyed diplomatic immunity. In any case, the police had at that time not completed their investigations and it was not yet established that Dr Ionescu was the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident on 15th December 2009.

In fact, even if Dr Ionescu did not leave Singapore after the accident, so long as he was an officially accredited diplomat, we could not have arrested him unless the Romanian government waived his immunity. His immunity would have covered anything he did, whether official or private. This is international law which we have to respect. But the situation now is different and a different provision of the Vienna Convention applies. Article 39.2 of the Vienna Convention stipulates that, after a diplomat’s posting ends and he leaves the country of accreditation, some of his privileges and immunities would also end. While he would still enjoy immunity for official acts, he would no longer enjoy immunity for private acts.

The State Coroner has now found, among other things, that Dr Ionescu was not acting in an official capacity at the time of the accident. The Romanian government has withdrawn him from Singapore. Therefore, Dr Ionescu does not now enjoy and cannot now claim immunity for the accident. On 1st April 2010, a day after the Coroner announced his findings, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) preferred actions against Dr Ionescu and issued a warrant of arrest against him. On the same day, MFA summoned the Romanian Ambassador Mr Aurelian Neagu, who is resident in Tokyo, for a meeting in MFA. The meeting took place on 9th April 2010.

Ambassador Neagu was officially informed of the findings of the Coroner’s Inquiry and the charges against Dr Ionescu. MFA asked the Romanian government to do all it could to persuade Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore to stand trial. The Romanian government’s consistent position has been that it cannot compel Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore because there is no Extradition Treaty between Romania and Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a fact that there is no Extradition Treaty between Romania and Singapore. That is why we have asked the Romanian government to do all it can to persuade Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore. We cannot demand that they arrest Dr Ionescu or compel him to return to Singapore. We have, however, stressed to the Romanian authorities that although Dr Ionescu had been suspended from the Romanian Foreign Ministry, he has not been dismissed and is still formally an employee of the Romanian government. As such, the Romanian Government has a clear obligation to see that justice is served. If it is not possible to persuade Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore, we made clear that we expected the Romanian government to investigate and prosecute him under Romanian law.

The Romanian government has not disputed its obligations and has repeatedly assured Singapore that it shares our interest in seeing that justice is served. Ambassador Neagu has informed us that the Romanian Prosecutor's Office had started criminal investigations against Dr Ionescu on charges of "homicide by negligence, leaving the scene of an accident and false statements". But Ambassador Neagu explained that Romania would need to conduct its own investigations in accordance with Romanian law.

To this end, the Romanian government proposed the establishment of a joint

commission or Joint Technical Working Group to discuss the legal aspects of the case and the evidence against Dr Ionescu. On 9th April 2010, we informed the Ambassador that we agreed to this proposal. In fact, as early as 16th March 2010, the Minister for Law had assured his Romanian counterpart of our willingness to cooperate with the Romanian government to the fullest extent possible under our law. However, we could not then formally agree to their proposal for a joint commission before the Coroner had given his findings on 31st March 2010. Singapore could not prejudge the outcome of the Coroner’s Inquiry or the decision of our Attorney-General’s Chambers to prefer charges against Dr Ionescu.

When MFA met Ambassador Neagu on 9th April 2010, he was given documents relevant to the case. In fact, these documents had been given to the Charge d’Affaires of the Romanian Embassy earlier during the course of the Coroner’s Inquiry, but the Charge d’Affaires told MFA he did not then understand they were for his government’s use. A certified copy of the full records of the Coroner’s Inquiry was given to the Romanian Embassy on 12th April 2010. The Romanian government has been acting properly. It is natural that their own legal authorities would want to conduct their own investigation, study the documents we have given them and to discuss the evidence with our legal authorities before coming to a decision on the criminal investigation that they have initiated against Dr Ionescu. We are now waiting for the Romanian side to propose specific dates to begin these discussions.

The Romanian Ambassador has told us that they are working on dates for a member of their prosecutor’s office and a member of their police to visit Singapore, but there are certain administrative formalities that they had to observe before doing so. We have to allow the

Romanian authorities some time to go through their own procedures.

On 23rd April 2010, the Romanian Foreign Ministry sent us a TPN asserting that Dr Ionescu's diplomatic immunity "continues to subsist" and cites Article 39.2 of the Vienna Convention to support this contention. We are puzzled as it seems to imply that Romania is now claiming that Dr Ionescu was engaged in official duties at the time of the accident and we do not understand how this can possibly be the case. On the other hand, reports in the Romanian media suggest that some of Dr Ionescu's assets in Romania have been seized and the Romanian police may be preparing to arrest him. We have not been able to confirm these media reports but the Romanian police has informed INTERPOL that the competence to prosecute Dr Ionescu remains with Romania and that criminal proceedings against him have started in Romania for crimes committed in Singapore. With these conflicting accounts, the sooner the Romanian legal experts visit us to clarify the situation, exchange views and review the evidence with our legal experts the better.

We have continually stressed to Ambassador Neagu that the Romanian government should not underestimate the outrage that Singaporeans feel about this case and that justice must not only be served, but seen to be served and served expeditiously. If not, as the MFA statement has already made clear on 9th April 2010, bilateral relations will be harmed. I believe that the Romanian government understands this, and would not want to see the entire country's good name tarnished by the actions of one rogue diplomat. Romania is a member state of the EU which prides itself on its reputation as a community of values. Bucharest understands that more than Romania's own reputation is at stake and that it must live up to the EU’s high standards.

MFA has also repeatedly stressed to the Romanian authorities that it is not in their interest to allow Dr Ionescu to continue making wild statements against Singapore. They only further inflame public opinion against Romania because the average man in the street does not distinguish between Dr Ionescu and the country, particularly since he is still formally employed by the Romanian government. However, the Romanian authorities have told us that as a Romanian citizen, Dr Ionescu has the right to say what he pleases and while they can advise him, they cannot compel him to be silent. We have no reason to disbelieve what the Romanian authorities have told us. The Romanian authorities have, quite properly, disassociated the Romanian government from Dr Ionescu’s statements.

Dr Ionescu's wild statements show that he is desperate. It is obvious from the comments of Romanian netizens that even his own countrymen do not believe him. Other diplomats in Singapore have told us that Dr Ionescu has disgraced the entire diplomatic corps which is unfair. Dr Ionescu is not hurting Singapore. He is only hurting himself and his own country. Despite the impatience we naturally feel, we must be disciplined and carefully observe due process. We are a country that respects the law. This reputation is an invaluable asset that we must preserve by handling the case calmly and in accordance with our legal system and our international legal obligations.

Now that the Romanian authorities have begun their criminal investigations of Dr Ionescu, we must give them time to complete these investigations and not prejudge the outcome. As I have said, the next step is for the Romanian Government to propose dates for their prosecutor’s office and police authorities to visit Singapore. We have told the Romanian

Ambassador that we expect this visit to take place by May this year and that there should not be undue delay.

When I was in the Vatican in St Peter's Square a few days ago, quite by chance, both the Romanian Foreign Minister Mr Teodor Baconschi and myself were waiting to see the Holy Father after his public audience. So, I passed word to ask if I could have a quick word with him. He agreed immediately and we pulled to the side and had a conversation. I stressed to him the anguish felt by Singaporeans about this case. He immediately responded by saying that he sympathised and assured me that this matter is receiving the highest attention in the government and the full legal course is being observed. He assured me that justice will be done. I told him that we cherished the good relations between our two countries and I asked for his agreement for me to make public our exchange in the Vatican. He did not demur and it was with his approval, therefore, that I issued that statement alongside the statement saying that I had met the Pope. From my conversation with Foreign Minister Baconschi, I felt reasonably assured that the Romanian government is taking this matter seriously but that they are required to observe their due process because this matter must go up, through Romanian courts. They, too, must follow procedures carefully.

Supplementary question, Sir. First, I would like to commend the Minister for his firm handling of the case. It is important that Romania does not underestimate our determination and resolve to pursue this case and ensure that justice is served. Sir, can I ask the Minister if Romania has given an indication of how long the criminal investigations will take in their country? And given that Romania does not seem to share the same understanding as Singapore that Dr Ionescu does not have

diplomatic immunity, is there a higher international body that we can turn to to resolve this?

Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo: Legally speaking, there is no higher authority that we can appeal to. Because of some disagreement or confusion over the interpretation of Article 39.2 of the Vienna Convention, the earlier INTERPOL red notice has been suspended. This is part of INTERPOL's procedures that if there are differing views, they would pursue the matter further before re-activating the red arrest notice. All these require the two sides to meet. They have already said that members of the Prosecutor's Office and the police would come to Singapore. We told them, "Look, do not delay this. Come as quickly as possible in May. Let us clarify the position between ourselves and enable the process in Romania to go forth, with our fullest cooperation." Separately, MFA has asked our Ambassador in Brussels to visit Romania with members of our own Attorney-General's Chambers in order to familiarise themselves with the legal procedures and processes in Romania. We are also engaging a lawyer to hold a watching brief for us in Romania.

2. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the reasons for the sharp upward revision in the GDP growth forecast for 2010; (b) whether the economic growth is expected to be broad based; (c) whether strong growth is likely to further fuel asset inflation and higher costs; and (d) whether the Ministry still sees downside risks on the horizon.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, MTI recently revised the 2010 GDP growth forecast upwards, from 4.5% to 6.5%, to

7% to 9%. The revised forecast takes two key factors into account.

First, the Singapore economy posted exceptionally strong growth since the beginning of the year. Based on advance estimates, Singapore’s GDP grew by 32% on a quarter-on-quarter seasonally adjusted annualised basis in the first quarter of 2010. On a year-on-year basis, it expanded by 13%, with robust growth rates recorded in all the key manufacturing, construction and services sectors. This indicates that the economic recovery is becoming broad based and more entrenched.

Second, the upgrade in GDP forecast also reflects further signs of improvement in external economies. Notably, the broad recovery in the US economy, coupled with buoyant domestic demand in China, will support the recovery of trade flows and benefit manufacturers and exporters in the region, including Singapore.

However, we are mindful that several downside risks remain. These include a sovereign debt crisis in Europe and a weak recovery in private final demand as fiscal stimulus measures are gradually withdrawn.

In terms of the outlook for domestic prices, we expect some inflationary pressures to emerge as the economy recovers. Specifically, wage pressures will build as the labour market tightens, while asset values could rise in tandem with the improvement in economic fundamentals. Rising global commodity prices, particularly energy prices, could also push up producer and consumer prices in the economy. The overall CPI inflation in 2010 is thus projected to be between 2.5% and 3.5%. This is higher than the 0.6% inflation in 2009, but lower than the 6.6% inflation in 2008.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, two questions. In the

Economic Review Committee (ERC) Report, it was mentioned that a 3% to 5% GDP growth per year will be healthy for an economy at our stage of development. Given that we have seen such a stunning strong growth for the first quarter and that we could possibly see double-digit growth for the year, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is enough slack or capacity within our economy to sustain such a strong growth.

Secondly, given that high growth will imply rising cost and inflation, besides the strong Singapore dollar policy, will the Government look at other policy tools or measures to rein in inflation and rising asset prices?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, we must take the strong growth this year in perspective. We have had two years of recession. The recession started around the middle of 2008 up to the middle of 2009. In fact, in 2008, our growth was 1%; in 2009, our growth was minus 2%. If we take the three-year period as a whole, the strong growth this year is actually a rebound from the very weak conditions in 2008 and 2009. If we take the three-year period, in fact, this is equivalent to a growth rate of about 2.4% per year. So, it is not something that is beyond the potential capacity of our economy.

Nevertheless, I think during this sharp rebound, we must expect some tightness. As I explained in my answer, we expect pressures to rise in the labour market. We also expect not just domestic factors but also external factors to affect us through higher commodity prices, particularly energy prices. These are some of the consequences that we have to manage with the stronger recovery that we have.

The main instrument in our monetary policy is to implement changes through the exchange rate. As I will explain in my answer to the next question, this is our key lever for monetary policy. Our economy is very open and we have decided to use the exchange rate rather than the rate of interest. Nevertheless, there are other levers or instruments that we can use, particularly administrative measures with regard to asset prices. The Government has already been doing so towards the end of last year and, again, in February this year. So, we are watching the situation very carefully.

3. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Senior Minister as the Singapore Dollar Nominal Effective Exchange Rate policy shifts from that of a zero per cent appreciation to one of modest and gradual appreciation, will he provide an assessment on how this policy will benefit or impact us.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang (for the Senior Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore adopts an exchange rate-centred monetary policy to maintain price stability for sustained economic growth over the medium-term horizon. Given the small and open nature of our economy and our dependence on trade, the exchange rate has a significant influence on domestic prices which, in turn, is critical for the economic decisions of households and businesses.

In April 2010, MAS announced that it would shift to a modest and gradual appreciation of the Singapore Dollar Nominal Effective Exchange Rate (S$NEER) policy band, in addition to an upward re-centring of the band. This effectively implies a tighter monetary policy stance. This policy decision is appropriate, considering that the Singapore economy has recovered

strongly from the global financial crisis and is expected to continue on a firm path, given improved prospects in the external environment. At the same time, domestic inflationary pressures are likely to pick up in tandem with the rise in global commodity prices and domestic costs. Moreover, the effects of the shift in policy stance work with a lag, and economic activity is already beyond pre-crisis levels. Thus, it is timely to unwind the policy that was put in place during the downturn, and return to a gradual and modest appreciation of the exchange rate. The adjustment to the monetary policy stance at this juncture will thus ensure that economic growth is sustainable going forward.

There are two main ways a stronger Singapore dollar will impact the domestic economy. First, the majority of products we consume and use in production are imported from abroad. A stronger exchange rate will, therefore, reduce the cost of these imported goods for both consumers and producers. Second, the stronger Singapore dollar will help moderate external demand for our goods and services and ease the demand for domestic resources, such as commercial and industrial space, as well as labour inputs. This will help prevent domestic business costs, such as wages and rentals, from rising too rapidly and ensure overall macroeconomic stability.

In the longer term, the steady appreciation of the exchange rate is in line with our strong economic fundamentals. It keeps inflation low and stable, which helps to preserve the purchasing power of Singaporeans’ income and savings. It also provides a stable and conducive environment for businesses to undertake long-term investments, thus enhancing competitiveness and providing the basis for sustained quality economic growth for Singapore.

Sir, I have three supplementary questions. One, how far would our gradual appreciation policy continue? Is it possible for the Singapore dollar to reach the previous high of 1.3438 against the US dollar? Second question: traditionally, MAS has used the exchange rate as a policy tool. Will there come a time when the Singapore dollar has appreciated to a level deemed too high that interest rate will have to be raised? In that situation, will inflation become a serious issue? The third question is this. If the appreciation of the Singapore dollar continues, would it impact Singapore's position as a major tourist destination now that we have positioned ourselves as such, with the opening of the two integrated resorts (IRs) and the remaking of Orchard Road? How would it affect our export competitiveness?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained in my answer, our stance in our monetary policy is taken through the exchange rate, and this works for the medium term. Since we adopted this in the 1970s, it has proven to be fairly effective given our very open economy and our high dependence on trade. Over the years, through our monetary policy, we have kept inflation rate in Singapore low and kept the economy competitive. We have six-monthly reviews on our monetary policy. Obviously, we have decided to maintain this posture and will review it next, when October comes around.

The second question that Mdm Ho has is about inflation. The whole idea is to have the exchange rate put on a gradual and modest appreciation path so as to tighten monetary policy as a way to bring inflation down. But once you use the exchange rate as the key instrument, you cannot use rate of interest, otherwise the two will work in contradiction to one another.

Her third question relates to the impact of the appreciation. As I mentioned, with the exchange rate getting stronger, this impacts us in two ways: one is because we are a very import-dependent economy, it will lower our cost of import resources. At the same time, it affects our exports. But because a high component of our export comes from imported resources, this has not affected our export competitiveness in the long term. As to specifically the impact on the tourist industry, our study shows that even though the currency's exchange rate is an important factor, what really draws people to Singapore are the attractions. I think relative exchange rate is a factor but not the most important factor.

4. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how has the median household income risen in comparison with the HDB Resale Price Index (RPI) over the past decade; (b) has the annual HDB RPI increase been higher than median household income growth when indexed against different years; and (c) in light of the announcements made in Budget 2010, how is the Government making sure that flats remain affordable for first-time homebuyers.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB Resale Price Index (RPI) has risen by an average of 3.2% per annum in the last decade, from 1999 to 2009. In comparison, the rise in median household income was marginally higher at 3.3% per annum over the same period. If Members would refer to Chart 1*, it illustrates what I have just said. *Cols. 175-176.

Chart 1 also shows that, during this period, prices have fluctuated from year

to year. Some years prices have gone up, other years prices have come down.

Hence, in answer to the Member's question, it is possible that prices of resale flats have risen faster than incomes when indexed against different years. Using more recent years to index the growth, we find that the annual RPI growth exceeded income growth, due to the strong demand and the quick economic recovery. This is shown in the latter part of Chart 2*. On the other hand, if we go back further and use 1995 as the base year, prices rose by 2.8%, lower than income growth at 3.2%. This is illustrated in Chart 3*.

Sir, ultimately, what matters is whether, at all times, first-time home buyers are able to afford HDB flats. This is what the Government is committed to achieve. It does so in two ways: one, by making available new flats of different sizes and in different locations for different income groups, from basic 2-room flats to premium 5-room flats, and two, by setting the prices of these flats such that they are well within the means of buyers within the income ceilings. To check on affordability, HDB uses the Debt-Service Ratio (DSR), which compares the monthly mortgage instalment to the monthly household income. The average DSR for new flats that were launched in the last six months in non-mature estates ranged from 17% for a 2-room flat to 23% for a 5-room flat to 25% for a 3-room flat, as shown in Table 1*. This is close to the CPF contribution rate of 23%, and well within the international benchmark for housing affordability at 30%-35%.

The DSR has remained at a comfortable level for first-timer households due to generous subsidies. All new flats come with a substantial market subsidy. First-timers can also enjoy a CPF Housing Grant of up to $40,000 when they buy a resale flat, Design Build and Sell Scheme

flat or Executive Condominium (EC). Households earning less than $5,000 monthly can apply for Additional Housing Grant (AHG) of up to $40,000. Eligible households can also get HDB concessionary loans.

Sir, I wish to assure Members that the Government will continue to set prices for new HDB flats to ensure that they remain affordable to first-time home buyers.

*Cols. 175-180.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I just want to check with the Minister on this. I understand that there are some flats in certain precincts that are priced much higher than the average selling price, as listed in Table 1. Would the Government consider raising the income ceiling for first-time home buyers to allow a larger group of Singaporeans to buy the new flats just to make it more affordable? Secondly, could HDB speed up the construction process of new HDB flats? I understand that for private properties, they take about one-and-a-half to two years to build. If we are able to build the flats faster, certainly, I think this would be a better option for first-time home buyers.

Yes, the Member is correct that there are flats in certain precincts which are priced higher. What I have cited in the Table are really the average prices. Why are these flats priced higher? One of the main reasons is because they are located in the central areas or mature estates. The prices I have cited are specifically for the non-mature estates. Having said that, we also track the affordability ratio, the DSR ratio for flats in the mature estates, and the DSR ratio also comes in at around 30% or so. Again, it is within the affordability benchmark.

Sir, the Member asked whether we would raise the income ceiling to allow more people to buy these flats. As the Member knows, the income ceiling today is $8,000 and at this income ceiling,

when we track the Debt-Service Ratio (DSR), we find that prices of flats are still within the affordability benchmark. Hence, there is really no compelling reason for us to raise the benchmark. But the other reason why we will not be raising the household income ceiling at the moment is because, as I had explained in this House many times, we have a finite housing budget and out of this housing budget, we will have to subsidise the first-time home buyers. And at the household income ceiling of $8,000 today, we are subsidising about 80% of the population. So, given the fact that our housing budget is limited and given the fact that we are already very generous in our housing subsidy framework, there is no reason for us to increase the household income ceiling at the moment.

The other question he raised was whether we can build flats at a faster pace. The current time to build a HDB flat from the moment the contract is awarded to the time it is completed is roughly three years. Are private sector flats built at a faster pace? If you take the same criteria from the time that the contract is awarded to the time it is completed, it is the same. But what the private sector may do is that they may build the flats, award the contract earlier and then market and sell the flats later on. So the time from when the person buys the flat to the time when it is completed may actually be less than three years. This is something that the HDB is looking at, to see whether it can award the contract slightly earlier, eg, if the subscription rate is very high, it may decide to award the contract earlier, given a fair chance that the flats for that particular contract will be more or less fully subscribed. So that is something that the HDB is looking at to see whether it can shorten the completion period from three years to, say, two to two-and-a-half years.

I thank the Minister

for these figures. I have a couple of questions. First, with regard to affordability, I note that it is the 3-roomers that have been hit the hardest. So this would affect Singaporean families which are in the working class and lower class. Is the Minister worried about that? The other comment I have is looking at the affordability figures, I note that in order to take care of mortgage responsibilities, it seems like most Singaporeans are maxing out their CPF to pay for their housing loans. This means that in terms of preparing for retirement, it may be a serious consequence ahead if they are not able to recover the funds, depending on whether the valuation of their property goes up.

When the Member looks at Table 1 which shows that the Debt-Service Ratio (DSR) for 3-room flats is higher than that for the rest, it would appear at first glance that the 3-room flat buyers are, as she put it, hit hardest. But these numbers refer to the average over the last six months. We have been monitoring the DSR for all the flat types over the last 10 years. We find that at every year, during the last 10 years, the DSR has been within this benchmark of 30% to 35%. So, if I take a concrete example, at 25% DSR for a 3-room flat, we are talking about, on average, monthly instalment of $528. $528 can be almost fully paid for using the CPF contributions. So, that family would need to pay something like $40 to $50 per month in cash because the rest of that mortgage instalment would have been taken care of by CPF. I do monitor this closely and based on the current situation and the situation over the last 10 years, these figures indicate that our new flats are well affordable, well within the means of all the different income groups, from the lowest to the highest. As I indicated in my reply, there is more help for the lower-

income groups because we have an Additional Housing Grant which we give to the lower-income groups. Because of this Additional Housing Grant, the 3-roomers and the 2-roomers benefit even more than those in the higher income brackets. So I would like to assure the Member that we do watch this carefully and I can say in all honesty that our new HDB flats are within the affordability range of all our new HDB first-time flat buyers.

A related question is whether, as a result of this, people are maxing out their CPF. To answer that question, I have to emphasise that buying a HDB flat is not an expenditure. It is an investment. It is not consumption because when you buy a HDB flat, at the end of the tenure of the flat or towards your retirement, that HDB flat is a very significant store of value. In fact, when the Department of Statistics last did a household survey a few years ago, they found that, on average, a Singaporean family has over $100,000 worth of asset sitting in his flat. That means, net of debt, net of all the payments, all the repayments due, a Singaporean family on average is sitting on over $100,000 worth of asset and that asset can be used for retirement purposes. Some of the policy changes over the last few years had been to achieve this objective of monetising that valuable asset. If we can monetise that asset, then the Member need not fear that we are spending our CPF funds. And this is another vindication of our home ownership policy because if we were to use that same amount of money – 25% of income – to rent a place rather than to buy a place, then at the end of 20 or 30 years, you will not be having this asset which you can use for your retirement income. Again, I would like to assure the Member that when we allow people to use their CPF for purchasing a home, it is to purchase an investment. It is not for consumption purposes.

5. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development if he will provide a breakdown of the number of first-time HDB flat buyers in 2008 and 2009 who bought (i) a resale flat from the open market; (ii) a new Build-to-Order flat from HDB; and (iii) a resale flat near their parents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an average of about 18,000 first-timers a year bought HDB flats in 2008 and 2009. Among them, about 10,000 (55%) booked new flats. The remaining 8,000 (45%) bought resale flats. So, 55% new; 45% resale. Six thousand and eight hundred bought resale flats with the CPF Housing Grant, of whom about 3,000 bought a resale flat near their parents and, hence, enjoyed a higher tier grant of $40,000. The remaining 1,200 bought resale flats without any grants.

The high number of young couples who buy their first flats each year is made possible by our generous housing subsidies. HDB is committed to help Singaporeans, including lower-income households, own their first homes.

Lower- and middle-income families earning up to $5,000 monthly receive additional assistance of up to $40,000 through the Additional Housing Grant (AHG) for the purchase of new or resale flats. A low-income family can therefore enjoy up to $80,000 in grants when buying a new flat.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. Encouraging the first-time applicants to buy resale flat has a positive impact of renewing our estates as well. I would like to ask the Minister what measures are being taken by the Ministry, if any, to encourage young first-time home buyers to consider buying resale flats in the open

market, so that they can increase this percentage from 45% to a higher percentage.

Second question: Will the Minister consider increasing the grant to help these first-time buyers who are considering resale flats rather than BTO flats, or even consider some type of financing for the Cash-Over-Value (COV) so that they can consider buying resale flats instead of queuing up for the BTO flats?

Sir, young, first-timer couples in Singapore have a choice. They can either buy a new flat or a resale flat. There are pros and cons for each decision. If they buy a new flat, the price is lower, because the implicit subsidies are built in. But the disadvantage is that they have to wait. There is another issue and that is most of these new flats are in the non-mature estates. Some couples cannot wait and some couples prefer to have flats in a mature estate, perhaps where their parents are staying. So there is a choice – new flats versus resale flats. But if they buy a resale flat, then they are paying a premium. They have to pay cash upfront because of the COV and they generally have to pay a premium for enjoying the benefits of no waiting time, mature estates, etc.

We do not have a pre-conception of how many first-timers should buy new or resale flats. We do not set a target for this. This is left to the particular situation and preference of the young first-timer couples. This ratio of 55:45 has fluctuated over the years. In some years, when resale flat prices are low, the resale flat proportion goes up, as high as 70%. Now when the resale prices are high, the proportion comes down. We do not have a policy as to whether we should have 40%, 50% or 60% new flat buyers versus resale. Hence, there is no need for us to consider incentives. The most important question is whether overall we have enough flats available for first-timers

to purchase, whether new or resale. The Member assumes that it is better for first-timer couples to buy resale flats. I do not think we want to skew the decision either way. We will let the market take care of it. That leads me to his next question, which is whether we should increase the grant or finance the COV. Doing so will implicitly mean that we would like to have more people buying the resale flats. There is no policy reason why we should be favouring one over the other.

I would like to ask the Minister two questions. Of late, there have been letters to the press of marriage breaking up due to the long waits for HDB's new BTO flats. How does the Ministry address the problem where an allotted flat is not taken up? How are they classified in the Ministry's database?

Second question: How could HDB overcome the anomaly of the current valuation process and high COVs? Would a review of our current HDB valuation process help address the issue of high COVs?

The Member asked what we do with those flats that are not selected. I did give some figures in this House earlier to show that we have on average about one-third of flats not selected on the first day of selection. HDB would set aside those flats that are not selected and offer them to the next persons down the queue. They would call up about two or three times the number of people than flats available, and ask them to select. If at the end of that selection process, flats are still unsold, they would be kept in a pool and then resold some time down the road. In other words, from time to time, you would see an exercise where HDB sells its balanced flats. What they call, the sale of balanced flats exercise. These include those flats that have not been sold under the

previous BTO exercises. But at the end of the day, rest assured that all these flats will be sold. Some of the not-so-popular flats may take longer time to sell.

The second question is whether we can do something about the valuation. I hope Members would appreciate that we have decided that we would let the market set the prices of resale flats. Government sets the price of new flats to make sure that they are affordable, but we do not set the prices of the resale flats. We want to make sure that there are sufficient new flats to cater for first-time buyers. We also know, as I explained in my reply to Dr Lim, that there are some people who prefer resale flats – so be it. But the resale flat prices must be set by the market and the resale flat prices include the COV. The COV is part and parcel of the resale flat price. To say that we want to control the COV and do something with the COV, essentially means we want to set the price of the resale flats, which I hope and I believe most Members of this House would not agree to.

What can we do with the valuation process? It is a process which is not determined by the HDB. The valuations are set by private sector valuers, and the valuers would then present this valuation price to the HDB. HDB would then use it to determine what is the loan eligibility of the buyer. Then it is up to the seller to determine how much above that valuation he wants to sell the flat. This is part of the market process as it is in the private sector, where there is no COV. So there is nothing unusual about having a COV in the HDB resale market. The fact that the COVs in the resale market are high today, which is causing some anxiety, is a reflection of the demand and supply situation in the market. I recall that last year, we had COVs which were either zero or negative. Again, that reflected the market's situation at that time. I dare say that, as the market cools down or the

supply catches up with demand, the COV prices would start to moderate as well.

Last question, Dr Lim.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister: Does he not agree that the renewal of estates is important, in the sense that we would have to consider policies to help to renew our ageing estates? So, encouraging first-timers to consider buying resale flats rather than BTO flats does achieve the impact, and would not a policy to favour that actually helps in terms of national development?

Yes, I do agree. That is the reason why we do not totally meet the demand from first-timers with new flats. We do not have a 100% new flat, 0% resale flat policy. If that were to happen, then the concern that the Member has expressed would come true. What we would like to do is to have a balance of new and resale flats. What I said in my reply was we do not have a pre-conceived idea what that balance is. But we have monitored the situation and the balance over the last many years has been quite acceptable. There will be people buying resale flats, people who are able to afford resale flats and people who want to buy resale flats for all the various reasons that I have mentioned. The current grant is a very effective way of incentivising and encouraging them to do so. The grants are very generous – you can get a grant of $30,000 or $40,000 from the CPF Housing Grant to buy a resale flat. On top of that, you can get another grant, up to $40,000. You can get up to $80,000 to defray the cost of buying a resale flat. That is encouraging and incentivising many young couples today to buy a resale flat. I do not think the Member needs to worry too much that people will not be buying resale flats. As the numbers show, about 45% of people – or almost half of the young first-timer couples – are buying a resale flat.

6. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how widespread is the problem of illegal deployment of foreign workers; (b) what measures are in place to address this issue; and (c) for foreign workers who refuse to be illegally deployed or complain against their employers, whether the Ministry can provide better protection from reprisals by such employers.

Sir, over the past three years, about 0.1% of the foreign workforce has been involved in illegal deployment cases each year. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, employers who are convicted for illegally deploying their foreign workers will be fined up to $5,000 or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. In addition, errant employers will be debarred from employing foreign workers in future. An average of 190 employers was convicted for illegal deployment over the past three years.

MOM has intensified enforcement efforts against errant employers in recent years. We have also increased our efforts to educate foreign workers on their employment rights and about the relevant MOM regulations and the channels of help that are available to them. Useful information relevant to foreign workers is first disseminated via the In-Principle Approval letters sent to them in their home countries prior to their departure for Singapore. Guidebooks published in the workers’ native languages are also given to all new foreign workers upon arrival. Such information is also provided during safety orientation courses. In addition, MOM also organises road shows in dormitories to raise awareness of foreign workers on these issues. These measures

help to ensure that foreign workers are aware that it is an offence for them to work in an occupation or a company that is different from that stated in their Work Pass, and that they should report to MOM if they have been illegally deployed by their employer.

For foreign workers who do not collude with the employers and instead come forward to provide information of such illegal practices to MOM, my Ministry will ensure that their well-being is safeguarded and will also work with partners like the Migrant Workers Centre to provide them with humanitarian assistance if necessary. Where appropriate, we will also allow them to find new employers to continue working in Singapore.

I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: firstly, he said that foreign workers can make a report if they are illegally deployed. But their concern is that if they make a report, they fear reprisals from employers that they can be terminated and sent back. Secondly, they are concerned that they may be repatriated if they are considered to be running foul of the law.

The second point is the In-Principle Approval Letter given to the foreign workers, citing to them the fact that they need to have a job before they come to Singapore. Often it is the employment agencies or the employers that promised them a job. When they come here, there are actually no jobs available for them. In many cases, that is how they end up, becoming illegally deployed and set in their condition. Otherwise, they risk being repatriated without having paid for the heavy debts which they incurred. Although the system may be in place, for the foreign workers to make use of it is actually very painful for them. What other measures can the Ministry put in place to

safeguard their interests, in the event that they refuse to be illegally deployed or they come here to find that there are no jobs available for them?

Sir, we do understand that there are some foreign workers, who want to assist MOM with the investigations or to report their wrongful deployment by their employers, worry about the potential reprisal by the employers. We assure the foreign workers in Singapore that we can help them on such things. We will help them find alternative employment while they are assisting us with the investigation. On repatriation, it is one of the best ways to manage the number of foreign workers, who may not have a job in Singapore, having had problem with the employers.

It is very difficult for us to manage the debt for them because much of this is owed in their home country. But for those who are assisting us with investigations – because we understand that some of them may still need to repay their debts – we allow them to work with another employer and we provide the accommodation, if necessary and if they so desire.

We have put in place measures to ensure that the problem of non-availability of jobs for workers brought in to Singapore is much minimised. For example, construction and marine companies need to show documentary proof that they have ongoing projects before work permits are issued to them. For sub-contractors, they also need to show us an endorsement letter from the main contractor before they are allowed to bring in foreign workers. These are measures that have helped reduce the problem of foreign workers brought in without proper jobs.

7. Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen asked the Minister for Manpower whether he will

provide a breakdown by nationality of workers who have been injured or killed in workplace accidents in the past three years.

Sir, from 2007 to 2009, the number of workplace fatalities stood at 63, 67 and 70 respectively. Meanwhile, the number of non-fatal workplace injuries stood at 10,000, 11,000 and 10,800 respectively. Information on the breakdown by nationality of workers involved in workplace accidents is not available.

Given that the construction and marine sectors account for the majority of workplace fatalities and the predominantly foreign workforce in these two sectors, the majority of workplace fatalities consequently involve foreign workers.

We are working closely with industry to address the safety challenges in these two sectors. Some of the specific initiatives underway include sectoral plans to improve the safety performance of these two sectors. Industry taskforces on Work at Heights (WAH) and crane operations, which target risky work activities common in both sectors (construction and marine) have also made recommendations to enhance safety management.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the average time taken to process claims by injured workers or their dependants.

Sir, I do not have the information here. For injured workers making claims under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), we allow them about one year to stabilise their injury. This is to check whether the injury is permanent or not, and whether they can claim compensation under WICA. But I do not have specific data here on the

length of time taken to conclude investigation on claim for injury compensation.

8. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the annual energy consumption cost of street lamps for the last three years; (b) what are the measures to reduce their energy consumption; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider switching off alternate lights along certain stretches of roads, without compromising road safety, after midnight.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the liberalisation of the energy market in January 2003, LTA has been procuring electricity for street lighting through open tender. Due to the open tender system, LTA has been able to secure a lower off-peak rate for street lighting. The annual energy cost for street lighting for the past three fiscal years are $15.9 million, $20.3 million and $14.8 million for FY 2007, FY 2008 and FY 2009 respectively.

LTA has been progressively installing more energy efficient high-performance street lamps. These street lamps can be 40% more energy efficient than the older ones. Where they are effective, LTA has been using them for new street lamps as well as to replace older ones that are near the end of their lifespan and due for replacement. About 8,000 such street lamps have been installed, saving more than $1 million in energy a year. LTA is currently looking at accelerating the pace of replacing the older street lamps where it is sensible to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, street lights are currently programmed to switch on from

dusk to dawn, to ensure that roads are bright enough for motorists' safety. They are also spaced at specific intervals so that our roads are lit up uniformly. Studies have found that switching off alternate street lights will result in alternating bright and dark bands that may affect drivers travelling at certain speeds. This would compromise road safety and hence the LTA is not in favour of switching off alternate street lights.

Nonetheless, LTA will continue to monitor the development of various technologies in this area and explore new and innovative ways to maximise energy efficiency.

9. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Transport given that cyclists are banned from riding on footways, except in Tampines, whether the Land Transport Authority will work with the Police and other relevant agencies to promote safety for cyclists on roads and come up with a coordinated national plan for improving the infrastructure and regulatory framework for cycling as a mode of transport.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Transport Authority, together with other relevant agencies (including the Traffic Police), has been working to create a safer riding environment for cyclists. Given Singapore’s land constraints, our policy is to optimise our available road and pedestrian space to meet the diverse needs of pedestrians, motorists, cyclists as well as other groups of commuters and road users. To do this, we have to balance the needs of the rising number of cyclists against that of other road users and pedestrians, while cyclists, drivers

and pedestrians have to exercise mutual accommodation and due consideration for each other.

One key aspect to promoting safety of cyclists on roads is public education. Having recognised the vulnerability of cyclists on the roads, Traffic Police, as well as several agencies (community and grassroots leaders and the Safe Cycling Task Force), has been conducting road safety talks and exhibitions in schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods to promote safe cycling habits. Also, based on the observation that many foreign workers had opted for cycling as a preferred mode of transport, Traffic Police has since been working closely with various foreign dormitories, corporate partners and organisations that employ a large number of foreign workers to promote safe cycling among their workers.

With regard to infrastructure, LTA is currently working with community stakeholders and the Traffic Police to roll out a $43-million programme to design and construct dedicated cycling paths in five selected HDB Towns as part of a pilot scheme, namely, Tampines, Pasir Ris, Taman Jurong, Sembawang and Yishun. These towns were selected as they had favourable local characteristics – a relatively compact geography, suitable infrastructure and land available for the cycling tracks, and also strong support for cycling. LTA is also working with the Safe Cycling Task Force (SCTF) to identify frequently used cycling routes outside of these five towns. Signs alerting motorists of the presence of cyclists have been installed along these routes and the signs have been found to be useful. LTA will continue to work with the SCTF to identify the need for similar signs at other locations.

To better coordinate these plans, and to allow each community to learn from the experience of others, the Ministry of

Transport set up a Cycling Facilitation Committee (CFC) in June 2009, of which I am the Chairman. The aim of the CFC is to establish a common, community-led approach to tackle the "soft" issues related to the implementation of dedicated cycling paths in these five towns as well as best practices to facilitate cycling for intra-town trips. Currently, grassroots leaders from these five towns are represented on the CFC. Other relevant governmental and non-governmental agencies such as LTA, NParks, HDB, Police and representatives from the Safe Cycling Task Force are also in the Committee. The Committee is working to establish a common code of practice for safe cycling, public education efforts and enforcement against reckless cycling behaviour in towns that want to facilitate cycling. We should see the efforts in these five cycling towns as piloting new ideas and approaches from which we can gain useful experience and lessons for possible wider implementation as we evolve our plans to facilitate cycling.

The safety of all road users, whether they are drivers, cyclists or pedestrians, is a shared responsibility. All road users will have to play their part by following the traffic rules and regulations, and exercise mutual accommodation and due consideration for each other.

Sir, can I urge the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not to look at the five demonstration cycling towns as models for the rest of the island but rather to look at the congested cities in the world, such as Paris, London, Geneva, Chicago, Edinburgh, who have managed to incorporate cycling into their urban transport systems with bike lanes on roads, with clear signs that indicate that cyclists have a right to be on the roads? Sir, I feel that the emphasis on Tampines or the other towns in Singapore is a red herring and might lead us in the wrong

direction because what we need is a clear national policy.

On the other question of education, can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary if he could work with the Traffic Police to ensure that the message is also targeted at motorists and not only at cyclists? For safe cycling to take place on roads, we need motorists to look out for them and are conditioned to look out for them.

Sir, we have also studied the cities that the Member has mentioned, whether it is Paris or London. On trips that MOT have made, we have looked at the different road infrastructure and how they facilitate cycling. The cities face similar situations and they also have made their own trade-offs. To accommodate dedicated cycling tracks or lanes on the road, you would have to give up a certain space for other motorists and other usage. We will continue to look at other possible ways – whether to put up more effective signs or whether to locate the space for cycling on the road or on a track. Although conditions could be different from city to city, we will look at what can be customised for Singapore's environment. At this point in time, we do not just look at the five cycling towns and experiment with these. What we try to do with the five cycling towns is to look at the "soft" issues, which are education and the clinics that we are conducting across the different towns as well as certain codes of practice that the community leaders can provide us with. So we take a multi-pronged approach – we will look at not just the infrastructure in the different cities that the Member has mentioned but also the education programmes and how we actually enforce it. In Tampines, for example, with the bye-laws, they were able to enforce it at a reasonable level on the ground through the Town Councils. We have to look at whether that model of operations can actually be implemented in the other areas. It is the same for education, and

infrastructure, in terms of building dedicated tracks.

As far as education for motorists is concerned, I agree with the Member that it is not just focused on our cyclists and making sure that they behave but also whether the motorists can accommodate and co-exist with cyclists. I think for this, we will work with the Traffic Police and look at the other different ways that we can educate the public – whether to have more safety awareness campaigns to alert the motorists about cyclists on the road. We will do the best we can in terms of putting up signs.

10. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cyclists were booked by the Police for cycling at night without any headlight and back reflector light during the past six months; (b) what were the fines meted out to these offenders; and (c) what is the fine for repeat offenders.

11. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he will elaborate on the education programme against cycling on road pavements for the general public and foreign workers; (b) what constitutes a proper bicycle for night cycling; (c) whether summonses have been issued to cyclists for accidents with pedestrians while cycling on pavements; (d) does the Police classify such cases as Non-Seizable Offences and does the pedestrian have to lodge the case with the Magistrate of the Subordinate Court; (e) out of the 700 summonses issued in 2009 for cycling on pavements, how many were issued to foreign workers; and (f) how many of these summonses issued to foreign workers have been paid.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 10 and 11 together?

Yes, please.

Sir, 699 summonses were issued last year to cyclists for cycling along the footways of roads, which is an offence under the Road Traffic Rules. Of these, 566 summonses or 81% were issued to foreign cyclists. More than 95% of these summonses have already been paid. For cycling at night without front lights or rear reflector lights, 226 summonses were issued in 2009. Based on the circumstances of each case, errant cyclists may be offered a composition amount of $20 for these offences. A repeat offender could be similarly offered the same composition amount.

However, for more serious cases, especially where the cyclist injures a pedestrian, the cyclist will likely be prosecuted in Court under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act, section 279 (Rash Driving or Riding on a Public Way) or section 337 (Causing Hurt by an Act which Endangers Life or the Personal Safety of Others) of the Penal Code. Police are also empowered to arrest the perpetrator without a warrant if the case is classified under sections 279 and 337 of the Penal Code. A pedestrian will therefore not need to lodge the case with a Magistrate.

Mdm Cynthia Phua asked about the education programme against cycling on road pavements for the general public and foreign workers.

To ensure that cyclists ride in safe manner that will not only ensure their own safety but also that of pedestrians, Traffic Police has been actively reaching out to

cyclists through platforms such as road safety talks and exhibitions in schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods. At these sessions, the Traffic Police outlines safe cycling tips and highlights road traffic rules that should be obeyed when cycling including requirements imposed for night cycling. Under the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Rules, to ensure the cyclists remain visible to other motorists who are riding at night, bicycles are required to carry a headlamp showing a white light to the front and a lamp or reflector showing red light to the rear of their bicycles during hours of darkness.

As for reaching out to foreign workers, the Traffic Police has been working closely with various foreign dormitories, corporate partners and organisations that employ a large number of foreign workers to promote safe cycling amongst their workers. The Traffic Police, in partnership with the Ministry of Manpower, produced a road safety video for foreign workers that focuses traffic specifically on the safety of pedestrians and safe cycling behaviour of cyclists. The video is screened at the premises of MOM, ICA and major foreign dormitories. These efforts have bolstered efforts by the local Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) in promoting road safety awareness amongst both local and foreign residents.

I would like to remind cyclists to obey all traffic rules as well as to be considerate to other road users especially pedestrians who are the more vulnerable road user group. While Police will press on in its efforts to educate the public and take the necessary enforcement action, roads can be shared safely only if all users exercise courtesy and personal responsibility in ensuring their own safety and that of others. Travelling on Singapore's streets would then be a safe and pleasant experience for all users.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Sir, I would like ask the Senior Parliamentary

Secretary to elaborate on the number of foreign worker cases that has been taken to court. The second question is this. Currently, the two critical areas are bus-stops and pedestrian crossings. Cyclists are speeding across the bus-stops as well as pedestrian crossings. Has the Ministry of Home Affairs been working with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to see whether we can install some physical barriers to prevent cyclists from speeding across the bus-stops? Until now, even as we are speaking on this issue, I have not seen any circular or poster by MHA, LTA or the Ministry of Transport so far. We have been talking about educational materials, so I really do not know what these educational materials are –

Mdm Phua, please keep your questions short.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In total, there were 1,513 summonses that we issued to cyclists. This, compared to 471 in 2008, is threefold. It shows that the enforcement action that the Traffic Police has taken has been more vigorous and frequent, in response to the complaints and feedback from our Members of Parliament as well as members of the public. Most of these summonses involve cycling along footways of a public road. Next is riding along flow of traffic and then riding other than an orderly manner. For most of them, the fine had been paid, for compounding, like I mentioned, 95%. Certainly, we will look at ways specifically to educate further the people to whom we should target safe cycling, including foreign workers as they make up 81% of the summonses. I can share the materials that we have published for these foreign workers as well as for the national education for our local residents with our Member. We also encourage Members to co-organise such workshops for the residents as well as the foreign workers in the vicinity together with the Traffic Police and LTA so that we can better reach them.

There was another question on barriers to prevent cyclists cycling to bus stops. This is an infrastructure issue. Perhaps, it should be best directed to LTA or MOT.

Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I received feedback from quite a number of motorists that very often, they have near-miss accidents because of the lack of headlights or the back reflector lights on bicycles. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Ministry would be stepping up action to take action against those cyclists.

The number of accidents that involved cyclists on the road is not huge. Of the 583 accidents that were reported involving cyclists in 2009, 1.9% involved cyclists and pedestrians, and the rest involved cyclists and motorists. So, on the one hand, we talk about footways just now, it is not a huge problem in terms of injuries. But yes, I agree with the Member that there is a much bigger problem when it comes to cyclists on the road. There are existing regulations and laws that we can enforce against motorists to make sure that they give enough space, for example, when they are overtaking cyclists. But we are also mindful that cyclists should be aware of their own vulnerabilities when they are riding on the road. When they do not give enough time to signal correctly or to move against traffic flow, that, inevitably, exposes them to the dangers of cycling on the road.

12. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many traffic summonses have been issued against motorcyclists in the past 12 months for riding along pedestrian pavements; and (b)

what actions will the Traffic Police take to reduce such dangerous practices.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, motorcyclists are prohibited from riding on footways of roads under Rule 28 of the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Rules. This offence can be compounded with a composition amount of $70. However, if prosecuted in court, the motorcyclist can be fined up to $1,000 or jailed up to three months. It is also an offence for motorcyclists to ride on HDB common property and open spaces such as void decks under the by-laws of most Town Councils. The offence can be compounded with a composition amount not exceeding $1,000. In 2009, more than 1,000 summonses were issued to motorcyclists for riding on footways. This is an increase of 28% over the previous year.

The Traffic Police takes strict enforcement action against motorcyclists who endanger themselves or others by riding on footways of roads recklessly or without due regard of others. The Traffic Police also engages key stakeholders, such as motorcycle clubs or organisations that employ a large fleet of riders, to remind the motorcyclists of the importance of obeying road traffic rules and to practise safe riding behaviours at all times. Some of these organisations take part in the "Ride Safe Ambassador" scheme, where the supervisors of teams of riders help spread road safety messages to fellow riders.

In 2009, the Traffic Police conducted more than 30 safe riding talks targeted at motorcyclists. As part of the "Ride Safe" campaign, the Traffic Police displayed table top advertisements and lamp post banners in tertiary education institutions such as NUS, NTU and polytechnics to promote road safety awareness among young riders. Members would have seen the key message last year was "Ride

Safe. Don't Speed". The advertisements and banners also highlighted riding offences and their penalties.

As Traffic Police continues with enforcement action and public education programmes, like cyclists, motorcyclists must play their part in ensuring a safer road environment for all. They can do so by observing the road traffic rules at all times, not riding on footways of roads, and adopting a safety-conscious mindset. This will go a long way towards ensuring that other road users can also enjoy a safe and pleasant journey on our roads.

Sir, I was almost knocked down by a motorcyclist last month on my way to Serangoon Stadium. Maybe I was a bit agile, so I managed to avoid it. But he almost knocked into another woman right in front of me. Sir, I do notice that there are more and more motorcyclists riding along footpaths, so I was wondering whether more enforcement action would be sufficient to deter such irresponsible behaviour because I think it is pretty dangerous as they are moving at a faster speed than cyclists.

I empathise with the Member for such a harrowing incident. Certainly, the Traffic Police takes a serious view especially of motorcyclists using pedestrian footways. But we have to look at this phenomenon in proportion to the number of accidents that actually happen on the roads to the motorcyclists themselves.

Last year, about 4,500 motorcyclists were killed or injured, of which 100 of them were actually killed, including the riders and about 10 pillion riders. So in proportion to the number of accidents on pavements, there were about 14 accidents that resulted in injuries from 2005 to this day. So, in proportion, the number of injuries actually far outweighed those on our roads than on the footways. We will continue to enforce in proportion. I think we have to put our people on the

ground where it matters most, that is, put our education programmes in proportion, again to ensuring motorists take due care to ensure that they understand their own vulnerabilities when they are on the road and to respect the rights of use of other users on the road and not to use the footpaths when they are travelling from one place to another.

13. Mrs Mildred Tan asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in light of the expiry of the first of our Water Agreements with Malaysia next year, whether the Minister can give an update on Singapore's attempt to be self-sufficient in water and whether this will mean an increase in water tariffs for Singaporeans in the future.

You have about three minutes, Dr Yaacob.

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Sir, Singapore has two Water Agreements with Malaysia, one expiring in 2011, and the other one in 2061. Sir, over the years, Singapore has built up its local water supply with new reservoir schemes, NEWater and desalinated water. With these new sources, we have diversified our water supply and built up a robust system. We will not need to renew the first Water Agreement when it expires in 2011.

We have augmented our local catchments with the Marina, Punggol and Serangoon Reservoirs. Singapore's water catchment area will increase from half to two-thirds of our land area when these three reservoirs are completed by 2011.

NEWater supply capacity is also being ramped up concurrently. With the completion of the NEWater plant at Changi in 2010, NEWater will be able to meet 30%

of Singapore's water needs. In addition, the desalination plant completed in 2005 can further meet about 10% of Singapore's water needs.

As the production of NEWater and desalinated water are independent of rainfall, they can be used to supplement local water stocks in an extended dry spell, like the one experienced in February this year, which was the driest February on record. Over the next few years, we will be building a second desalination plant, so as to further enhance the drought resilience of our water supply, and ensure reliability for Singapore's water users.

Water pricing is an important element of our water conservation efforts. Water tariffs need to be reviewed from time to time, to reflect the higher costs of producing water from these newer sources and other general cost increases. Sir, the Government will study any proposal to revise tariffs carefully, particularly its impact on low income households.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 14, 17, 19-20, 25, 28, 30, 33, 34 and 37 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 15-16, 18, 21-24, 26-27, 29, 31-32, 35-36 and 38 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 27th April 2010.]

*Cols. 141-158.

"to amend the Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) Act (Chapter 309 of the 2003 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Hindu Endowment Act (Chapter 364 of the 1994 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Land Titles (Strata) Act and to make consequential and related amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act and the Stamp Duty Act",

presented by the Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to consolidate the laws relating to Coroners' enquiries and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by Mr Shanmugam; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Criminal Procedure Code and to make consequential and related amendments to such other written laws",

presented by Mr Shanmugam; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal and re-enact the amendments with amendments to the Electronics Transactions Act to provide for the security and use of electronic transactions, to implement the United Nations' Convention on the use of electronic communications in international contracts adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on 23rd November 2005 and to provide for matters connected therewith",

presented by the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 2010 seeks to amend the Constitution in three areas. First, to introduce refinements to the framework for Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). Second, to allow for arrested persons to be produced before magistrates for First Mentions via video-conferencing. Third, to abolish the Citizenship Advisory Committee. I will go through each in turn.

Refinements to NCMP and NMP system

Sir, in May last year, the Prime Minister announced changes to our electoral system. Of these changes, the refinements to the NCMP and NMP systems will require amendments to the Constitution. The changes to the NCMP system will also require amendments to

the Parliamentary Elections Act, which will be moved by the Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs later.

Rationale behind the refinements

Let me first set out the context for the specific amendments.

Sir, like many Commonwealth countries, Singapore’s political system was modelled after the British Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. One of the key features of such a system is a legislature elected by voters through first-past-the-post contests and the appointment of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet from among the elected Members of Parliament. As we have matured and grown as a sovereign independent country, so too has our political system evolved to meet the changing needs of our society. The objective, however, remains unchanged from the day we achieved independence – that is to have good governance for the well-being and betterment of all our people, regardless of race, language, religion or social class.

Good governance, in our view and experience, requires a political system which, on the one hand, fosters political stability by representing the varied interests of an ethnically plural society and, on the other hand, enables whichever party that forms the Government to make well-considered decisions and implement them effectively for the national good. This gives us the strength and discipline for long-term and strategic planning as well as the nimbleness and responsiveness that has enabled Singapore to prosper and progress since independence. Parliament, in our political system, therefore allows the expression of diverse independent views and the representation of constituent interests and concerns. However, these should augment and not undermine the role of the Parliament to

act decisively – for its Members to decide on issues and policies, balancing all relevant considerations and after hearing and debating all relevant points of view.

Singapore's political system has produced political stability, prosperity and a high quality of life for citizens since independence. This is clear to both Singaporeans and external observers. For instance, the IMD World Competitiveness Report has, since 2005, consistently ranked Singapore among the three most competitive countries in the world. We have also been ranked highly by the World Economic Forum, the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) and Mercer Consulting, among others. Investors also rate highly the political stability of Singapore and continue to invest in us because of their confidence in the Government.

Sir, in our political system, the Government has to renew its mandate from the people at least once every five years through free and fair elections. This is how the Government secures the legal and moral authority as well as the political legitimacy to govern and lead the country, implementing policies and programmes for the betterment of our people. The ballot box is the ultimate way by which the people exercise their right to choose who they want to represent them and to govern and lead Singapore for the next five years. Our political system has worked well because the PAP Government has regularly reviewed and updated our framework and laws to advance our political development in tandem with societal changes. An example of this is the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. In the 1970s and early 1980s, when there was increasing evidence of voting patterns along ethnic lines, the Government, after a long

debate, decided to introduce the GRC system. GRCs encourage political parties to take a multi-racial perspective, and ensures that our ethnic minorities will always be represented in Parliament regardless of who wins the election.

As we mature as a society and our citizens become better educated and informed, we see a growing desire among Singaporeans to follow and express views on important national matters. Singaporeans are keen to be engaged more on issues affecting their lives and future but they also want themselves and their children to continue enjoying stability, security, order and communal harmony. Finding the dynamic and changing balance between these aspirations and interests is a challenge for both the Government and the people. But it is a challenge that we will not ignore and will continue to seek to address in a wise and practical manner.

A corollary of this desire for more engagement is a desire to see greater diversity of views on issues discussed and debated in Parliament. This is not just a political fashion. It is an evolution which the Government has consistently and progressively fostered. As the world we live in grows more complex and dynamic, it is vital that we maximise ideas and knowledge by engaging a greater diversity of views. Parliament is the best place to develop this. It is the highest decision making body in the land. It is the right forum to have a responsible free exchange of views and representation of interests on the record and accountably and ultimately to take an informed collective decision which will be legitimate and accepted by Singaporeans.

To provide for this, the Government made changes to the political system with the introduction of the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMP) scheme in 1984 and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMP) scheme in 1990. The results of General Elections since then

have consistently shown that the majority of Singaporeans continue to desire and support a strong and dependable Government. However, recognising that Singaporeans also desire to hear more diverse views in Parliament and, indeed, the value of engaging comprehensive perspectives to help sharpen or refine policy formulation, the Government has decided to expand and entrench the NCMP and NMP schemes further.

Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMP)

Let me now focus on the NCMP scheme. The Constitution currently provides for up to six NCMPs to ensure a minimum Opposition representation in Parliament. The Parliamentary Elections Act prescribes that the number of NCMPs shall be three, or such greater number not exceeding six that the President may, by order, specify for the purpose of that General Election after the dissolution of Parliament and not later than the day of nomination, less the number of elected Opposition MPs.

NCMPs are provided with most of the rights, privileges and duties of elected MPs. They can participate fully in parliamentary debates, raise motions, ask questions in Parliament and even vote on most Bills. They are, thus, provided with the opportunity to propagate their parties’ programmes and positions. However, as un-elected Members, they cannot vote on a Bill to amend the Constitution, a Supply, Supplementary or Final Supply Bill, a Money Bill, a vote of no confidence in the Government or a motion for the removal of the President from office. These powers will remain the privileges of an elected MP.

The NCMP scheme was introduced in 1984 to ensure that the Parliament has at least a few Opposition Members, even if the electorate returned only candidates from the ruling party to Parliament. Three

benefits were highlighted then. The first was to provide PAP Ministers and MPs with the experience of the cut and thrust of debate by sparring with Opposition Members. The second benefit was to allow the electorate to judge for themselves what elected Opposition Members can and cannot do for the people. The third was to dispel any suspicions of cover-ups, since Opposition MPs would give vent to any allegation of misfeasance or corruption or nepotism, even if these proved false and allowed the Government to rebut them.

The NCMP scheme has fulfilled its intended purposes. It has ensured the presence of Opposition Members in Parliament. The Workers’ Party rejected the NCMP seat for its candidate in the 1984 General Election after the scheme was approved by Parliament before the General Election. But since 1988, there have been four NCMPs in Parliament – Dr Lee Siew Choh and Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, both from the Workers’ Party, Mr Steve Chia of the Singapore Democratic Alliance and Ms Sylvia Lim also of the Workers’ Party. Together with other Opposition Members, they have participated and contributed in their own way to parliamentary debates.

Clause 3 of the Amendment Bill, therefore, amends Article 39(1) of the Constitution to increase the maximum number of NCMPs in Parliament from six to nine, similar to the number of Nominated MPs. Coupled with changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act, there will be a minimum of nine Opposition Members in the House at any one time, whether directly elected or via the NCMP route subject to the Opposition candidate or candidates winning at least 15% of the total number of valid votes polled. Therefore, regardless of the electoral outcome, the Opposition will be a fixed and significant feature of this House. As to whether they can increase their membership in Parliament beyond what is

provided for in future, it will ultimately depend on whether they can convince Singaporeans that their policies and programmes will benefit Singaporeans more than those put forth by the ruling Party. The NCMP scheme gives them access to Parliament to try and do so.

The NCMP scheme is unique to Singapore as no ruling Party in any other country has created a scheme to allow the losing Opposition candidates into Parliament. We have done so because, as a Government, we think that this is a good thing that is in Singapore’s interests. But let me also say that as a Party, the PAP treats parliamentary elections very seriously and we will therefore field our best candidates and will continue to contest each and every parliamentary seat robustly to win.

Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs)

Sir, let me now turn to the NMP scheme. The Constitution currently provides for up to nine NMPs. After each General Election, Parliament has to decide whether to pass a motion that there shall be NMPs during the term of that Parliament. If Parliament so resolves, then a Special Select Committee of Parliament will invite the public to submit names of persons who may be considered for nomination by the Committee. From the nominations received, the Special Select Committee will then nominate nine persons for appointment by the President. These persons nominated come from diverse backgrounds and bring to Parliament valuable views drawn from their expertise and experiences. NMPs have been given the same rights as NCMPs to allow them to participate meaningfully in the parliamentary process.

The NMP scheme was first approved in Parliament in 1990 and the number of NMPs was increased from six to nine in

1997. We have extensively debated the merits of the NMP scheme in this House. This scheme has worked well in providing non-partisan alternative views.

When we first instituted the NMP scheme, then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said that each Parliament will be given the discretion to decide if it wished to have NMPs for the term of that Parliament. This safeguard was introduced because the scheme was new and it was uncertain whether the scheme will work. Twenty years have passed. I believe that the NMP scheme has become an accepted feature in this House. Past and present NMPs have played valuable roles in enriching the debate and discussion on national issues.

As such, clause 5 of this Bill abolishes the requirement for a resolution to be passed by the Parliament before NMPs may be appointed. This will entrench the NMP scheme as a staple feature of all future Parliaments and not a matter to be determined by each new Parliament. NMPs can now be appointed any time within six months after the Parliament first sits following a General Election.

Other amendments to the Constitution

Sir, there are two non-election related amendments which I will now speak on. First, we propose to allow arrested persons to be brought before a Magistrate for First Mention through video-conferencing, in addition to the current physical production of an arrested person before a Magistrate. Second, we propose to abolish the Citizenship Advisory Committee. This Committee reviews all cases where applications for Singapore Citizenship have been rejected.

Video-conferencing for First Mentions

Sir, the Constitution currently requires a person to be brought before a Magistrate within 48 hours of arrest and

that he shall not be further detained without the Magistrate’s authority. This is meant to allow the Magistrate to verify his identity and ensure the protection of his fundamental liberties. The Constitution requires that the person be physically produced in front of the Magistrate for First Mentions within 48 hours excluding the time of any necessary journey. This requirement has its roots in the Constitution of Malaysia, and was instituted at a time when video-conferencing technology was not available.

Today, video-conferencing technology has advanced considerably and video-conferencing usage for criminal proceedings, including First Mentions, has been introduced in overseas jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Australia, UK and some states in the United States. In Singapore, video-conferencing has also been used in Court proceedings for some time now. Singapore’s Subordinate Courts first used video-conferencing with Prisons for criminal mentions in 1996. Since then, the Subordinate Courts, Prisons and the Attorney-General’s Chambers have gradually expanded the use of video-conferencing to cover pre-trial processes such as further mentions, bail reviews, and represented and unrepresented pre-trial conferences.

There are several benefits in expanding the usage of video-conferencing to First Mentions. First, there will be a reduction in security risk as movement of arrested persons will be minimised. In addition, there will be a reduction in the multiple handing over and taking over of arrested persons from one officer to another during the process. This will enhance the management and security of the arrested person and will also lead to more efficient use of limited manpower resources.

Second, in the case of medical emergencies, such as when the arrested

person is hospitalised, field magistrates are currently sent to hospitals for First Mentions to be carried out. With the use of video-conferencing and the proposed set up of a centralised secured ward at Changi General Hospital, First Mentions and also further mentions can henceforth be conducted by the Magistrates via video-conferencing from the Courts without the need to deploy field magistrates.

Clause 2 of this Bill amends Article 9(4) of the Constitution to enable an arrested person to be produced for First Mentions before the Magistrate either physically or by way of video-conferencing link or other similar technology.

Sir, I would like to emphasise here that there will be safeguards to ensure that the use of video-conferencing does not affect the fundamental liberty of the arrested person. What has changed is just the mode of producing the arrested person before the Magistrate. First, the arrested person will still be detained for not more than 48 hours unless the Court makes an order for his further detention. Second, the Court will retain the discretion to call for the arrested person or consider the application of the arrested person to be physically produced in Court at any time before or during the First Mentions. Third, certain groups such as juveniles, by virtue of their age, will continue to be produced in Court in person. Fourth, video-conferencing will not be used for accepting pleas or sentencing. However, in time to come, I do not rule out the possibility that video-conferencing would be expanded to include such hearings as has been done in other countries.

Citizenship Advisory Committee

I will now touch on the final amendment introduced in this Bill – the abolition of the Citizenship Advisory Committee. Currently, the Constitution

provides for a Citizenship Advisory Committee formed by three persons to be appointed by the President. The Minister shall refer all citizenship applications identified for refusal to this Committee. The Committee shall review all of these cases to confirm that the grounds for refusal are reasonable and the cases have been fairly assessed. The Minister shall then have regard to any report made to him by the Committee before deciding whether to reject the application.

Sir, the Citizenship Advisory Committee was introduced via the Singapore Citizenship Bill, more than 50 years ago, in 1957. There was no concept of Singapore Citizenship prior to that. After the Constitutional talks that resulted in Singapore becoming self-governing, the Singapore Citizenship Bill was introduced to provide for the granting of Singapore Citizenship to eligible persons so that they could vote in the Legislative Assembly elections. Many long-term residents were migrants from China, India and the Malay Archipelago and were called "aliens" at that time. Those who were born in Singapore were called "British subjects". Most of both groups were eligible to be registered as Singapore citizens and become voters. A Citizenship Advisory Committee was then set up to ensure that eligible persons who were qualified to become citizens under the law would not be unfairly excluded especially in view of the impending General Elections for the Legislative Assembly.

Sir, the concern that migrant residents who have lived in Singapore for many years might be denied their rights to become Singapore citizens is no longer relevant today. Today’s context is very different from the late 1950s. Singapore became self-governing in 1959 and gained Independence in 1965, 45 years ago. We no longer have the issue of local domiciles. The applications for Singapore

citizenship that we receive today are from foreigners who want to make Singapore their home. The granting of citizenship to foreigners is a privilege. Singapore citizenship is not an entitlement or a right for a foreign resident.

It is therefore no longer necessary to send all rejection cases of foreigners applying for Singapore citizenship to a Citizenship Advisory Committee for review. In any case, our system for the grant of Singapore citizenship includes a rigorous process of evaluation. And even with the abolition of the Citizenship Advisory Committee, foreigners whose applications for Singapore citizenship are rejected by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) can still appeal to the Minister under section 3 of the Third Schedule of the Constitution. Clause 4 of this Bill therefore repeals section 18(2) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution and abolishes the Citizenship Advisory Committee. Clause 6 of this Bill provides that all applications for citizenship which are pending when the Advisory Committee is abolished need not be considered by the Advisory Committee.

Sir, this Bill marks an important and another milestone in the constant and progressive evolution of our political system of parliamentary democracy. Henceforth, Opposition and non-Government voices will be expanded and entrenched in this House. We will have the opportunity to hear from a greater diversity of views in this House including the views and opinions of a larger number of Opposition members.

And, as this House considers these significant changes, I would like to end with this comment. We live in a globalised world and we are not immune to developments and pressures outside our country. But we must always be true to ourselves. When we develop and evolve our political system, we must never forget certain important fundamentals.

One such fundamental is that whatever changes we make must be reflective of what we, as citizens, want for our country, based on what will work for Singapore. The right to steer our social and political development as a sovereign country is not transferable and is non-negotiable. In short, Singapore politics is for citizens. For although we are a small country, Singaporeans are no less proud of our independence than the largest country in the world.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, can I seek a clarification?

No. Your turn will come. Mr Alvin Yeo.

3.27 pm

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate. In his speech in Parliament last May, the Prime Minister foreshadowed the changes to be made to our electoral system. These had four components: one, making the Nominated MP or NMP scheme permanent; two, having smaller GRCs – the average size for GRCs would be five MPs or less, compared to the current average of 5.4; three, having more single-seat wards, ie, SMCs, at least 12 compared to the current nine; four, lastly and perhaps most controversially, to increase the maximum number of Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) to nine.

These changes are presently before the House. I, wholeheartedly support the first three limbs concerning the NMP scheme, size of GRCs and number of SMCs. I would, however, invite the Government to reconsider the plan to increase the maximum number of NCMPs to nine.

It was stated last May that the benefits of these changes were that it would generate more robust debate, improve policy formulation, expose PAP MPs to the cut-and-thrust of debate and demonstrate to the Opposition what they can and cannot do. In his speech just now, the Deputy Prime Minister elaborated on this, by speaking of the need to improve the diversity of views and quality of debate in Parliament. I do not question the value of this objective. But I do worry whether increasing the maximum of NCMPs will really improve the quality and diversity of debate and whether it is really needed, given the other changes that are being made.

First, would it improve the diversity of views that are aired in Parliament? In this regard, one must distinguish the NMP scheme from the NCMP proposal. For the NMP scheme, by definition, nominations are to be drawn from six groups, namely, business and industry, the professions, labour movement, social and community organisations, media, arts and sports and tertiary education institutions.

A seventh group, the people sector, is to be added. One can really see that the NMPs who have generally distinguished themselves in this House, would offer different perspectives coming from the different vantage points that they occupy.

That would not necessarily be the case with having a greater number of NCMPs. To illustrate what might happen in a future election, if we already had the scheme in place before the 2006 elections, the results would have been as follows:

One, Workers' Party MP, Mr Low Thia Khiang, and six Workers' Party NCMPs, Ms Sylvia Lim and five others.

One Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) MP, Mr Chiam See Tong, and one SDA NCMP.

So the two Opposition parties that are already represented in Parliament, would have simply gained six more representatives. I have no doubt that that would have promoted a greater variety of debating styles and languages. But what about a greater variety of views and ideas? The Opposition regularly criticise the PAP MPs for speaking with one voice although I dare say that this current debate, amongst others, would disprove that notion. But have you ever heard Ms Sylvia Lim take a different position from that of Mr Low? Or going back to 1991 when the SDP had three MPs in Parliament, was there an occasion where they did not toe their party line? I believe that if the maximum number of NCMPs is increased, we will see more Opposition representatives in Parliament but not speaking with a different voice.

Secondly, will it improve the quality of the debate in this House? At various times in Parliament, but most recently in his speech made last May, the Prime Minister has eloquently and forcefully put forward the case why proportional representation (PR) would not work for Singapore. In homogenous societies, they can work, but they tend to lead to coalition and often weaker governments.

In non-homogenous societies such as Singapore, they could encourage more extremist views as an Opposition politician strives to attract enough attention and votes to come in as a minority representative. I do fear that increasing the maximum number of NCMPs would end up producing similar effects to that of PRs. Again, purely by way of illustration, if we had the system in place just before the last election, the ninth NCMP, or it would have been the seventh NCMP, but the ninth Opposition Member, would have gotten a seat in this House with just 34.63% of the votes cast in his particular ward, or just over one-

third of the electorate supporting his candidacy. And given that the legislation only requires an NCMP to have a minimum of 15% of the total number of votes polled, the seventh, eighth or ninth NCMP in future could conceivably come in with an even lower level of support than one-third. The danger is that in future elections, we may attract candidates who, instead of trying to win a seat in a "first past the post" contest, which involves appealing to a majority of the voters in terms of policies and plans, would set out instead to create sound and fury to garner a large enough minority vote to enter this House as an NCMP. Is this the sort of representative who will take the level of debate or the formulation of policies to a higher plane? Or are we more likely to attract those with espoused views that appeal to the fringes of the electorate to gain enough notoriety to stand out from a candidate who is trying to win a contest honestly on his and his party's merits? What about the views of the majority who, in voting for the winning candidate, may have rejected implicitly, if not explicitly, the losing candidate who garners 30% plus of the vote? How would they feel about having this losing candidate admitted to this House? Do we really want to move from a system where we admit the best loser as an NCMP to a system where we let in the seventh, eighth or ninth best loser?

The smaller size of GRCs and the increased number of SMCs will address the Opposition's complaint that the barriers to entry are set too high for them even without increasing the maximum number of NCMPs, nor, I believe, should our Government make any apologies for setting the barriers to entry into Parliament at a suitably high level. We may not have as exciting or entertaining a Parliament as some other countries and we may be regularly attacked by libertarian movements who wish us to blindly imitate western electoral systems whether or not they suit our situation, but

our system works for our country. And while we should always prepare to modify it to keep current with changing circumstances, we must strive to maintain a House where constructive, not destructive debate reigns.

3.36 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

Since the NMP scheme started 20 years ago, NMPs have made contributions to the House, presenting non-partisan views and enriching our debates. The scheme has worked well and they have long been accepted by Singaporeans. Hence, making them a permanent feature of Parliament is the next step. Therefore, I support clause 5 of the Bill which amends section 1 of the Fourth Schedule to abolish the requirement for a resolution to be passed by Parliament before Nominated Members of Parliament may be appointed.

With the changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act, which are consequential to the constitutional amendments, NMPs, NCMPs and Opposition MPs may fill at least 18 seats or about 20% of the House. This will help bring in more diverse views while maintaining stability and effective governance.

Like NCMPs, NMPs can participate in debates, vote on laws and even propose legislation. However, they cannot vote on money and Supply Bills, constitutional amendments or no-confidence motions. This is as it should be as they have not been elected by the people. The desires of the majority, who voted in the ruling party, will prevail without suppressing the concerns and voices of the minority. This gives us the flexibility to make the necessary adjustments to our policies. We will have a hybrid system which strikes more of a balance between the

concept of "winner takes all" and representative government. I believe that this system will allow us to reap the benefits of both systems while minimising the disadvantages.

In the past, we have seen NMPs contributing refreshing and out-of-the-box ideas which enriched our debates in this House. Increasingly, Singaporeans want greater participation in political debates and expect more robust debates in and out of the House. Over the years, NMPs have risen to the occasion.

Our NMPs had participated enthusiastically in debates on a wide range of issues. Some had even filed motions and proposed legislation.

I remember vividly the motion filed by two NMPs, Prof. Thio Li-ann and Dr Loo Choon Yong two years ago to ask that a by-election be required by law should a minority Member, or half or more Members of a GRC slate, vacate his seat mid-team. While I agreed with the Government’s position on the issue, the debate was constructive in that it ventilated alternative views.

Our NMPs have made valuable contributions to Singapore over the last two decades and I welcome having them as a permanent feature of our Parliament.

The other main amendment is to raise the maximum number of Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) to nine. Since the introduction of the NCMP scheme in 1984, NCMPs have engaged PAP MPs in debate over a wide range of issues. The scheme has been widely accepted by Singaporeans and I think, by and large, has been beneficial to our system. Increasing their number will provide a wider avenue for voicing the concerns of the voters who had voted for them. Hence, I support this amendment under clause 3 of the Bill.

I also support the consequences of this amendment to the new section 52(3A)(b) of the Parliamentary Elections Bill which puts a cap of not more than two NCMPs from one GRC and the new section 52(3A)(c) of the said Bill which imposes a cap of one NCMP from an electoral division which is not a GRC. This will help ensure the even geographical distribution of NCMPs throughout the island. This also makes the NCMPs' voices more geographically representative.

I believe that these changes will meet the changing expectations of the Singapore electorate. While the electorate wants the Government to remain stable and continue its track record of providing economic growth, business and employment opportunities, good infrastructure, housing, healthcare and education, they also want greater political participation and more debate on policies. As NCMPs can participate in debates in the House, vote on laws and even propose legislation, having more NCMPs will facilitate this desire.

However, as they are not allowed to vote on money and Supply Bills, constitutional amendments and no-confidence motions, this will provide a form of safeguard in that it ensures that the winning team is given the mandate to execute correct policies which benefit the country. Also, this preserves the barrier of "first past the post" Members of Parliament and distinguish him or her from an NCMP. So it is a safeguard. And the safeguard is in fact built into the Constitution and therefore there are already safeguards to address that increase from six to nine.

This amendment is generous and magnanimous towards politicians who have actually lost the election. It is a far-sighted move to allow alternative party views to be aired in Parliament while

ensuring the Government is still equipped to run the country efficiently.

The third amendment I would like to debate is found in clause 2 of the Bill. It amends Article 9(4) of the Constitution to enable a person who has been arrested and not released to be produced (within 48 hours) before a Magistrate by way of video-conferencing link. One concern I have regarding this amendment is that it should not, as far as possible, extend to Plea of Guilt Mentions (commonly known as PG Mentions). The Magistrate should as far as possible only record a person's plea, pronounce a conviction, listen to a mitigation plea and sentence a person in Court, with the said person also in Court. This allows the Magistrate to read the accused more carefully and also allows the accused person the assurance that he can raise his mitigation in a setting and environment he knows to be independent of the Prosecution. Therefore, will the Minister please assure the House that the amendment does not extend, as far as possible, to PG Mentions?

In conclusion, Sir, I support the amendments to the NCMP and NMP schemes as they will increase the level of debate on policies in this House. In relation to clause 2 of the Bill, I seek the Minister's confirmation as to its ambit.

Sir, I support the Bill.

3.43 pm

Sir, today, some important changes have been proposed to our political system, which will have an impact on the way we govern in the future.

I would like to focus on two proposed changes and discuss them in turn. First, to increase the minimum number of the NCMPs to nine, and, second, to make the NMP system a permanent feature in Parliament.

In the case of NCMPs, objectively, it is not the job of the ruling Government to help the Opposition get into Parliament – the onus is really on the Opposition camp.

It is the job of a good Government in Singapore, however, to work towards a democratic society that is based on justice and equality, as enunciated in our National Pledge. It is not a question of seeking to maintain PAP hegemony, as some cynics may charge, but of upholding the country's basic creed.

The Opposition parties have long claimed that the reason they do not win many seats in the General Elections is that the playing field – they say – is uneven. Some think this is just an excuse they trot out for their inability to field quality candidates and put up a credible and compelling programme to voters. Others, on the other hand, think this charge has more than a grain of truth, and point to the big GRCs anchored by Ministers as giving the PAP an unfair edge.

Whatever one's opinion on the issue, I think, with nine guaranteed seats for the Opposition in the next Parliament and also with the increase of single seats from nine to 12, the tilt of the playing field could be said to be more in their favour. For even if they lose, nine of the highest-scoring Opposition candidates can still get into Parliament.

Such a privilege does not extend to the PAP candidates who may lose the election by just a few votes. And some PAP candidates who do win, after years of hard slog on the ground and a tough fight at the election, will enter Parliament only to find their beaten rivals take their place alongside them in the Chamber. Not only that, the NCMPs, given their more provocative comments and populist calls, would tend to receive better media coverage of their Parliament speeches than the elected PAP MPs, even if the latter may speak with more substance.

Hence, I cannot help but wonder at the charge made by some that this proposal is calculated to stifle the growth of the Opposition, that this is a PAP ploy to perpetuate one-party rule.

One would think that, on the contrary, with at least nine Opposition figures in Parliament, the Opposition can use the high-profile platform of this august Chamber to prove itself and build up its strength.

Do not forget that when the PAP started its political life in the Legislative Assembly in 1955, it had only four Assemblymen. Yet from that four, the PAP managed to build itself up into a potent political force. By 1959, it was able to contest all seats and win the elections. And also do not forget, throughout that period, the English language press were against the PAP.

If the Opposition of today keeps blaming the media and the PAP for its failures and weaknesses, I think after some time, fair-minded Singaporeans can sort out fact from fiction and draw their own conclusions.

The situation is not unlike teams of athletes taking part in a relay. Team A has been sweeping the top three prizes year after year, to the chagrin of the other teams. It has been winning because it has the strongest athletes with a fast anchor runner – they recruit the best, train hard all year round, work as a united team and never lose sight of their goal. The other teams who hardly train, however, turn up at the race and moan, year in and year out, that the race is very unfair as they have a hard time trying to beat Team A.

So one year, the organisers decided, among other things, to give away nine more prizes, without diluting the spirit of the competition. They may not be the same as the gold, silver and bronze

trophies, but they allow the best losers to get onto the podium, receive a trophy and accept applause from their supporters for their effort. If nothing else, this should boost their morale and motivate them to do better. Certainly, there is no lack of Opposition parties – there are more than 20 of them registered. I hope, if this Bill is passed, the nine Opposition candidates who get into Parliament on the NCMP ticket will value the privilege of being in this House and seek to lift the level of intellectual debate – not lower it. If one takes the Opposition forums on the Internet as a barometer of the intellectual debate in its camp, however, one does not have cause for confidence.

Our experience in the 1960s with the Opposition, the Barisan Sosialis, has also demonstrated how quickly Parliament could be turned into a gladiatorial blood sport. The Barisan was intent on frustrating each and every measure of the Government to bring progress, and on sustaining an atmosphere of instability to bring the Government down. More time was spent on fighting political battles than on solving the most urgent of problems facing the country. The real victims were the Singapore people. The older generation went through these traumatic times of political instability and uncertainty. But the younger generation of Singaporeans have no memory of these times and have little interest in history.

For this reason, I see merit in expanding the NCMP scheme.

It will provide an opportunity for the younger generation to assess for themselves the quality of our Opposition politicians and decide for themselves if having more Opposition can improve the governance of this country. The younger generation will face new problems, often

brought about by the very solutions of the old ones, and these, even if they can in turn be solved, generate new situations, and with them new solutions, and so on, and forever unpredictably. They must learn to take ownership of their decisions and the consequences for the country. After all, our education system, with its emphasis on critical and creative thinking as well as national education, has provided them the foundation to emerge as intelligent and responsible adults.

In my view, the current problem with Singaporean democracy is not so much the lack of opportunity for the Opposition to get elected, but rather the lack of opportunity for many of our citizens to vote. This is because there was no Opposition contesting in their constituency, leading to a walkover.

Many berate the PAP for this, as if it is the PAP’s job to also ensure that the Opposition find and field sufficient credible candidates for a General Election.

They forget that the large number of walkovers was in fact an Opposition strategy to create the "by-election" effect, where it intentionally returns the PAP to power so that voters can feel more secure about voting for Opposition.

It strikes me as not only unfair, but quite ridiculous to blame the PAP for the walkovers when it was the party that fielded candidates for all seats.

I hope that, with smaller GRCs and more single seats, the Opposition will contest all seats so that more Singaporeans will get to exercise their vote.

Whether the Opposition enter Parliament through the front door or what some people call the "back door", they at least can be said to represent a segment who had voted for them. Thirty percent is at least a proportion of the public mandate.

The same, however, cannot be said for the Nominated MPs.

Hence, I have grave reservations over the proposal to make NMPs a permanent feature of Parliament. Unlike the Opposition, who at least fight the elections to get into Parliament, the NMPs are really there at the grace and favour of each Parliament, subject to Parliament approval after every election. They have no obligation to speak for the people, and indeed, have not earned the right to.

They have not submitted themselves through the electoral process to open scrutiny by the people, for the privilege to represent them in this House. Some people say, "Oh, the PAP MPs who had walkovers are no different!"

But there is a big difference and a big one. The PAP candidates submitted themselves to the electoral process and were ready to put themselves through the rigours of an election campaign. The fact that the process was not carried through was not their choosing.

As for the NMPs, their mandate to speak in Parliament comes not from the people, but from the elected MPs of each Parliament. The elected MPs may or may not give their assent to their continued presence in Parliament.

To remove this requirement is to remove this important distinction of representative democracy. It offends the fundamental democratic principles of representation and accountability. It opens the door to the unprincipled pursuits of individual self-interest and group of interests.

To help prevent this, it is crucial that the process of selecting the NMPs must be made even more stringent, rigorous, transparent and more open to public scrutiny. At the very least, there should be more than one Committee interviewing and vetting the nominees to judge their motivations and commitment.

What we want to guard against in the future is the sight of NMPs sauntering into the Chamber, enjoying the unearned status and privilege of being called MPs, and leaving after two years without any discernible contribution to the House.

Sir, in the end, policies and laws are made by men and women who make decisions, and not just debate endlessly in Parliament. Leaders are elected to formulate and explain the decisions they consider best for the country, after weighing all the factors. They are accountable to the people.

Sir, the elected PAP MPs may perhaps feel this most keenly, because we take seriously our obligations to the people and spend much time addressing their needs on the ground. We often get abused by residents for unpopular PAP policies, even if they are the right ones for the country. To add insult to injury, we also have to endure being called PAP "yes men" or "yes women", even though our record may show otherwise.

Sir, anyone who takes the trouble to read the Hansard can find ample evidence of Ministers being taken to task by PAP backbenchers. The PAP is not a monolith. The PAP backbenchers will continue to ask sharp questions and will continue to be alert. At least, I hope I will be and I intend to be [Laughter].

In this respect, a principal difference between the PAP backbenchers and the Opposition is that we do not oppose for opposition’s sake. We speak up to make sure that legitimate concerns of the people get a fair hearing and to help find constructive solutions to the country’s complex problems. At the heart of good governance must be men and women of tested ability and integrity who are prepared to act in the national interest, rather than their own.

The PAP has developed a system that has allowed it to select men and women of integrity, commitment to society and ability to come forward to serve. It does not always get it right but, by and large, the system has served Singapore well.

Singapore has scored well for its social and economic achievements, for its organisational ability to overcome crises, for its transparency and for being one of the least corrupt countries in the world. This system will survive as long as we can get clean, effective and dedicated people to be in Parliament and to uphold this system. It is a virtuous circle.

But no government, however intelligent, honest and far-sighted, can succeed without the support of people. Good governance must therefore be accompanied by strong public support. This requires a working democracy and goes beyond the mechanics of winning elections.

It is about ensuring the political legitimacy of the Government and constantly building public trust in the integrity of the system and keeping that trust. The end goal of any governance system is not institutional strength, not even economic well-being. It is not about meeting World Bank, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) or Freedom House benchmarks. It is about building a nation. It is about creating an inclusive society where citizens not only progress, but feel a sense of ownership and belonging to the country.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.57 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, the Workers’ Party opposes the Bill. I will first discuss the change in criminal procedure before moving on to the political changes. First, video-link for remand cases. Clause 2 of the Bill will take away a very important safeguard for suspects under police investigation. Under the existing Article 9(4) of the Constitution, a suspect arrested by the Police can remain in police custody for a maximum of 48 hours and any further detention for police investigations will require a Court order from a Magistrate. This has required the police to transport the suspect from police lock-up facility to the Court premises, to be produced in person before a judicial officer.

Sir, this physical removal from the police facility into a Court, and being in the direct physical presence of the Court, gives an assurance to the suspect that he has an independent party to complain to should he be undergoing any undue hardship during investigations. The Magistrate will also be able to observe the suspect's physical condition, the way he walks, stands and speaks, for signs of exhaustion or even injury. This safeguard is very important at this stage of the case. Even though the suspect has a right to counsel under Article 9(2) of the Constitution, this right has been deferred by case law and is unlikely to be given at the point of first remand. This is quite unlike the jurisdictions mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Wong in his Second Reading speech. Most of the jurisdictions mentioned by him, I believe, have very strong rights to counsel, in fact, immediately upon arrest.

Sir, accordingly, it is not right to compare our jurisdiction with those countries because in our system, the right to counsel is much more deferred and this makes Court oversight even more critical at the stage of first remand when the investigations are still very hot and there is pressure to solve the case.

Sir, by allowing remand orders to be given via video-link, the suspect will no longer be brought to the independent court but to perhaps another room in a police facility, guarded by police. Under such constrained circumstances, will he have the confidence to raise any issues about the investigations or complaints against the police? Neither will the Magistrate sitting miles away be able to properly observe and assess his physical condition or other causes of concern.

We should not allow the logistical inconvenience of having to transport suspects to Court to be a reason to derogate from their constitutional rights. Neither should the recent incidents of near escapes from the Court be another reason to avoid transporting suspects to Court.

Sir, changing any rights under the Fundamental Liberties protection in our Constitution deserves the utmost justification. The reasons given by the Government are weak and the change will be a serious compromise to the safeguard intended by Article 9(4).

Sir, I next move on to the changes to the composition of Parliament. First, entrenching Nominated MPs in the system. The Workers’ Party position on NMP remains the same and I do not intend to repeat what we have said through the years. In summary, we do not support having MPs who do not participate in the electoral process. We have voted against all motions to have NMPs in the past, and we will oppose the entrenchment.

I will focus the rest of my speech on the change to Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs). Sir, clause 3 amends Article 39 to increase the maximum number of NCMPs in Parliament from six to nine.

The Workers' Party will oppose the amendment on the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. This change is an attempt by the Prime Minister to make a bad situation better. Yes, it improves the current situation and will give some recognition to the desire of voters who supported Opposition candidates in large numbers. However, the fundamental problem should be tackled at its root cause – the GRC system and gerrymandering. Let me elaborate.

Last May, the Prime Minister told the House that the rationale for the increase in NCMPs was "to encourage a wider range of views in Parliament, including Opposition and non-government views". He said that it would "generate more robust debate and improve policy formulation". The "most important" reason for the change, according to him, was "to keep Parliament in sync with the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans, and strengthen the role of Parliament as the key democratic institution where important national issues are deliberated and decided".

Sir, it is good that the Prime Minister has an open mind towards alternative views. However, his vision of Parliament now seems to be a sort of feedback unit or even as a talk-shop. Is that all that Parliament, as an Organ of State, should be? What happened to Parliament being a collective mandate of representation, where each MP who is there has a right to be there to make decisions for the people because the people have so elected?

Sir, under the doctrine of separation of powers, Parliament has a critical role as a check on the executive government. Parliament can only be legitimately formed after the General Elections (GE), when the people decide who should be in Parliament to represent them. Even the PAP boasts that it faces the people every five years to get a mandate. But instead of acting in the national interest, the PAP Government has over the years tinkered with the electoral system for its own political ends.

Allow me to trace some history, in case some of us have forgotten. Sir, the NCMP scheme was introduced in 1984. This was soon after the PAP lost just one elected seat in the 1981 Anson by-election, captured by Workers' Party’s then secretary-general, the late Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam. However, the NCMP scheme did not stop the people from voting for Opposition. In the 1984 GE, Mr Jeyaretnam retained his Anson seat with a larger majority and, in addition, Mr Chiam See Tong won convincingly at Potong Pasir with 60%. Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Wong in his Second Reading speech mentioned that the Workers’ Party had rejected the NCMP seat in 1994, but I think he was mistaken, it was actually in 1984.

Sir, at that time in 1984, there had emerged a trend of declining support for the PAP. The PAP then came up with a double whammy to secure its political power – GRCs and gerrymandering.

The ruling party introduced GRCs in the 1988 GE – this was avowedly for the purpose of minority representation, despite the fact that minority candidates were still defeating Chinese candidates at the previous GEs. The GRCs started with three-member groupings. At that GE, 1988, Workers’ Party’s team at Eunos GRC, consisting of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Francis Seow and Mr Khalit Baboo,

secured 49% of the votes against a PAP team.

By the next GE, 1991, GRCs had been expanded to four-man teams. However, there were 21 single-member seats. At that election, voters elected four Opposition MPs into Parliament, in Single Member Constituencies (SMCs), including the Workers' Party's Mr Low Thia Khiang. This was the largest number of Opposition MPs elected since the Barisan Sosialis walk-out in the 1960s.

Sir, in the following GE, in 1997, GRCs were again expanded to even six-man GRCs. No longer was there an attempt to explain these mega-GRCs as securing minority representation; instead, the excuse of economies of scale for Town Councils and Community Development Councils was used. Despite that, the Workers' Party’s team in Cheng San GRC scored 45%, with its team including Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Tang Liang Hong. By this GE in 1997, the PAP's expansion of the GRC saw only nine SMCs left, a drastic reduction from the 21 at the previous GE. Such was the PAP's need to dominate. This tiny number of nine has been with us till today, such that when the Prime Minister announces an increase of SMCs from nine to 12, we hail this as progress!

Sir, over the years, the PAP has itself admitted that the GRCs serve its party purposes. In 2006, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong noted that having GRCs helped to recruit PAP candidates since, "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". Minister Mentor had also commented then on the GRCs being useful training tools, since the Health Minister who had been with him in Tanjong Pagar GRC from the previous GE "should be ready to lead his own GRC team" in the coming 2006 election.

Sir, the other twin pillar of the double whammy is gerrymandering. The entire electoral boundary re-drawing process is completely shrouded in secrecy, chaired by the Secretary to the Cabinet. There are no public hearings, no minutes of meeting published. The revised boundaries are released weeks or even days before Nomination Day. The report makes no attempt to explain why certain single seats are retained when others are dissolved, nor why new GRCs are created or old ones re-shaped. Voters have changed constituency at successive elections without moving a single step. Adam Road is now Tanjong Pagar, Serangoon Central is Marine Parade. Coincidentally, constituencies which showed strong Opposition support are broken up or merged with others. Today, we no longer have Eunos GRC or Cheng San GRC.

Sir, a few days ago, the Prime Minister appeared in a television interview with American journalist Charlie Rose and spoke of the importance of the moral right to govern. How does abusing the GRC system and gerrymandering square with the moral right to govern?

Sir, in addition there are serious limitations to NCMP seats and it is important to highlight to Singaporeans these limitations. Besides not being able to vote on critical matters, we are considered as lacking in official capacity to represent the people. This was brought home in 1997 when Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, who was then NCMP, filed a parliamentary question asking whether any directive had been given to Government departments not to reply to letters sent by him as NCMP. In the exchange which followed, the Home Affairs Minister reiterated the fact that NCMPs do not represent any particular constituency and, therefore, the Government departments would only respond to

letters by elected MPs or grassroots advisers on behalf of residents in those areas.

I have my own experiences of this reality. I have been doing house visits in Aljunied GRC for several years. The residents have raised certain concerns to me which I have highlighted in Parliament as issues, where appropriate. However, I have no official capacity to write letters on their behalf regarding their specific cases, though I would very much want to.

In addition, an NCMP has no physical base. Under the Town Councils Act, the incumbent MP of a constituency will be in charge of the Town Council which controls the use of common space. As for the Community Clubs, these are in the hands of the People's Association. It is next to impossible for an opposing candidate to be allowed to use a space to organise activities or dialogues. We have applied for permission to use spaces in PAP wards and received expected rejections. On the other hand, ruling party hopefuls in Opposition wards are appointed advisers to grassroots organisations, thereby apparently having status to liaise with HDB and other Government departments on behalf of residents!

Sir, it may well be that the PAP wants complete dominance, with non-PAP voices provided through NMP and NCMP schemes. But what would happen if the PAP starts to falter or be corrupt? A good political system is one which can provide sustainable checks on the ruling party, through the people having real bargaining power through the presence of elected Opposition Members. This will serve as a strong incentive for the ruling party to perform and pay heed to the people's desires. Elected Opposition Members are a manifestation of a challenge to the ruling party, not just in Parliament but on the ground.

It is not in the national interest to promote a system where the survival of the country becomes so intertwined with the fate of one political party that the people are left hostage. Instead of worrying about the MPs’ debating skills, the Prime Minister should worry more about whether each of his MPs has the support of the people, which an SMC system would automatically cure.

In conclusion, Sir, let me summarise. By this Bill, the Prime Minister is trying to make a bad situation better, but increasing NCMPs is not the solution towards a more robust political system. The root causes of our current problems are the abuse of the GRC system and gerrymandering. These have curtailed the expression of the people's desires at the elections and, instead, promoted the ruling party's own agenda. The PAP has created the problem which it is trying to solve. But we should instead tackle the root causes for a more lasting and sustainable political future for Singapore.

Sir, for these reasons, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill. The Member for Hougang will vote against the amendment as I cannot vote!

4.35 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Constitution is an important watershed in Singapore politics. I would like to comment on the NCMP and NMP amendments as well as on new citizens seeking Public Office and the use of video-conference link.

Sir, first, the proposed amendments to Article 39(10)(b) seeks to increase the number of NCMPs and section I of the Fourth Schedule to make the NMP scheme a permanent feature of Parliament.

Sir, the amendments will enable the entry of nearly 18 non-elected MPs into our august Chamber. This is no small number as it makes up nearly one-fifth of the House. Like a few of my PAP colleagues before me, I ask if there is a need to increase the number of NCMPs and, indeed, is it the ruling Party's responsibility to ensure that the Opposition parties have more bandwidth.

Sir, on the NCMP scheme, I wonder what would be the implications if the highest losers in the polls are non-credible condidates who have lost their deposits in the elections. Would we unwittingly then be admitting non-credible candidates into Parliament? How would these candidates increase the quality of debates?

Sir, what would be the implications if we are not cognisant of the fact that the Opposition could try and capitalise on the situation by working out an arrangement among each other to get into Parliament via the NCMP route. Opposition candidates who gain this backdoor entry could band together to put forth their causes or demands in an un-parliamentary manner.

We should draw lessons from our neighbouring countries where opposition members create havoc and bring parliamentary proceedings to a standstill. Singapore definitely could not afford such a situation. What additional measures are in place to prevent disruptions, if any, to parliamentary proceedings?

Sir, on the NMP scheme, I seek clarifications on making the NMP scheme a permanent feature of Parliament. The NMP scheme served its purpose well when it first started, primarily to encourage and stimulate more alternative, non-partisan views in a period where views were not so forthcoming. I remember many of them, past and present, who have contributed to the plethora of views in their respective areas

of interests. But today, many avenues are available – from the Government institutions such as REACH, Forum Page of national papers, Speakers’ Corner to online exchanges. The views and ideologies from sectoral interest groups to VWOs are proliferating like wildfires. Sir, has the original role of NMP evolved over the years and, in light of the proliferation of more avenues for expression of views, how will the NMP role change to be more effective?

Sir, the Parliament is an august Chamber and elected parliamentarians have to go through the baptism of fire in elections to be qualified. Elected MPs are accountable to the electorate for speaking out their wards’ views on national issues that impact the ordinary citizens and their needs. Elected Members of Parliament shoulder a heavy responsibility and carry risks of actions taken by them. Elected MPs are always under the constant scrutiny of the public eye. They are deemed to do no wrong; they are vulnerable and easy prey for negative and self-serving elements.

What would be the status of NMPs compared with that of elected MPs, now that the NMP scheme is being proposed to be made a permanent feature? However, unlike NCMP Ms Sylvia Lim's view, I believe that NMP's role could be evolved to be more effective.

Sir, on new citizens seeking Public Office. In the face of new immigrants and citizens entering the mainstream of Singapore society, we need to look into ensuring the quality and quantity of political aspirants. In the United States and United Kingdom, we see a new wave of immigrants contesting the local and national polls. In the UK, a Singapore-born woman is contesting the polls as a Liberal Democrat candidate. The US Constitution sets out limits on age, minimum residency period for candidates seeking to become senators where they should be at least 30

years old and be a US citizen for at least nine years at the time of election to the Senate and be a resident of the state one is elected to represent in the Senate.

Singapore is fast becoming a melting pot like the US and the UK. But in talent-starved Singapore, we need to get as many committed and talented people on board Singapore Inc. Who knows, we may get another Goh Keng Swee or another S Rajaratnam? We have always called upon our foreign talents who chose to make Singapore their home, their country to step up to the plate and deliver. To make good our call, we should allow these new Singaporeans to be part of the establishment. But caution is necessary. Given our short history and multi-racial mix, it becomes a heady brew in the hands of lesser and self-serving individuals. Singapore is too small and young to afford such an experiment in these trying times. What is the Government’s stand on this?

Sir, I would like to suggest that we allow new Singaporeans a "cooling-off" period of 10 years. In the case of exceptional individuals, we can make an exception. But a 10-year period should be imposed on new citizens who want to enter Parliament, either as an elected Member or nominated Member. These individuals should not see this as a crimp on their personal freedom but rather as insurance by their new country of choice. The stakes are too high for us and the risk of a renegade MP could only do untold damage to Singapore as a whole.

Sir, the Bill also seeks to amend Article 9(4) whereby it enables a person who is arrested and not released, to be produced within 48 hours before a Magistrate by way of video-conferencing link or other similar technology. Contrary to NCMP Sylvia Lim's views, I think this is commendable amendment and in keeping with the times, where IT should be used to help streamline processes.

We should definitely look for more situations where IT can help to make processes more efficient in our Government organs and to reduce costs. This is especially important as our resident population is increasing and processes that can be automated or moved online should be done so. Video-conferencing allows for communications as real life. The recent example of how businesses and political leaders overcame the volcanic ash saga by way of using video-conferencing is a business contingency plan that we must not ignore.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.43 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I declare my interest as a Nominated Member of Parliament and I rise in support of the proposal to make NMPs a permanent feature of Parliament. I do feel an extra burden now that Ms Irene Ng has questioned our very existence.

The then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, in his Second Reading speech to amend the Constitution to provide for NMPs, gave three reasons why the NMP scheme was proposed. These were: (i) to build consensus; (ii) to encourage political participation and contribution, and to get those who can contribute to good government to serve, and (iii) to accommodate constructive dissent and alternative views.

Sir, I think that the NMP scheme has worked well, but in order for it to work even better, the reasons for NMPs and the role they play need to be more clearly defined. This is even more important and urgent now that the NMP scheme is going to be made a permanent feature of Parliament.

Sir, it is difficult to be an NMP; I speak from experience. We come into Parliament without any political party machinery to back us up, to hold our hands, and more importantly, we are criticised for representing nobody – we are Nobody’s MP. Nobody tells us what our roles are, nor are we told what our out-of-bounds markers are. We are told we are meant to be non-partisan without being told exactly what this means. We are meant to be neutral, but only the banal and those who do not stand for anything are truly neutral. It is all good and well to want NMPs to contribute, to be constructive but without a platform, without a clearly defined mandate and without clearly defined roles, NMPs can end up just representing themselves in Parliament and be not very useful at all. It is my opinion that in order for the NMP scheme to work better, two things need to be made clear.

Firstly, NMPs cannot be seen to be Opposition MPs, or indeed a shadow Opposition. This is very important. Many members of the public seem to misconstrue that NMPs are here to oppose the ruling party and to play the role of an alternative Opposition.

This cannot be. We are not opposition politicians. In fact, we are not politicians at all! How can we be when we have not participated in an election, never campaigned nor voted into Parliament on the back of a political party? It has to be made very clear that NMPs are in Parliament to give alternative views, not opposing views. If this was the case, there will be no need for NMPs, as Opposition politicians and political parties occupy this space in the political process, and if the electorate wanted these opposing views in Parliament, they would have voted them in. NMPs cannot be seen to be alternative opposition politicians because we are not.

What these alternative views are lead me to my second point, that in order for NMPs to function effectively, the meaning

of non-partisan needs to be clearly defined. It is important to clarify what it means when NMPs offer alternative, non-partisan views. In my view, NMPs can and are needed to play an important role in representing views and issues are not represented or not well-represented by any major political parties. It will also justify the existence of NMPs and why they should be appointed, or rather than elected. Let me explain.

In Singapore’s political system today, there are social issues that still lie outside the political system insofar as no political party fights any election with these issues at its core, not having them as an important part of their political manifesto. An example would be environmental issues, green issues. Whereas in many Western countries, especially European countries, Green Parties have emerged as an important political force, Singapore does not yet have any political party formed specifically around green issues, and which fights elections on these issues. Although various elected MPs have now and again brought up environmental issues in Parliament, and some may even be extremely passionate and learned about them, they were more likely elected to Parliament on bread-and-butter issues and will continue to focus on them in their constituency work, representing the bread-and-butter concerns of their constituents as they should. An NMP who is also an environmental expert or activist would thus fill this void very nicely, representing an important social issue that has not yet been politicised in Singapore and, in this way, offer a view on an alternative, non-partisan issue.

This is a very important distinction. An NMP would function a lot better if they were to represent alternative, non-partisan issues, rather than if they were asked to give alternative, non-partisan views on mainstream, partisan issues. The former fills a void, whilst asking NMPs to do the latter renders them irrelevant insofar as:

they are not Opposition politicians; and

one cannot be fully neutral about most things.

There are many other such alternatives, non-partisan issues that have not yet been politicised and, hopefully, never will be. Sports, for example, is one and is ably represented in this Parliament by my colleague, Ms Josceline Yeo. Who best to represent this issue in Parliament than one of the most be-medalled and successful athletes in the history of Singapore? And even though Sports is a Ministerial portfolio, it is not a political issue in that elections are fought on this issue – thankfully – and it is not yet politicised by any political party in Singapore – thankfully – but needs to be ably represented in Singapore’s highest legislative Chamber. Other important alternative, non-partisan and non-political issues would include the Arts and Culture. Singapore’s political system has also evolved in such a way where we no longer have a party that is seen to solely supports workers’ interests and another that solely supports businesses. All parties, including the Workers' Party are multi-issue parties that may have differing views on workers and businesses, but does not solely support either. This leaves another void that can be filled by an NMP from the business chambers, as it is now by my colleague, Mr Teo Siong Seng, to be perhaps countervailed by maybe an NMP from the Labour Movement, as it is now by NMP, Mr Terry Lee. In the previous batch of NMPs, Mr Siew Kum Hong brought up the issue of homosexual rights, another arguably non party-political issue in Singapore, unlike in the US, for example, where the Democrats and Republicans have clear opposing views on this issue.

I would like to point out that the present mix of NMPs in this Chamber more or less represents many of the

issues I have mentioned; what I however call for is for this to be made clear, that this is the main role of an NMP, to represent alternative, non-partisan issues in Parliament and not to act as an alternative Opposition. This would not only give them a clear platform, but also empower them to speak with a more confident voice, knowing exactly what they are meant to stand for. It will also help mitigate the criticism, raised by Ms Irene Ng, that they have not earned their right to be in Parliament since they are not popularly elected because, firstly, they are experts or distinguished achievers in their respective fields and, secondly, and more importantly, it is precisely because they do not represent political issues that they have to be appointed, rather than be elected.

Of course, NMPs cannot be stopped from giving alternative, even opposing views on political or politicised issues in Parliament; equally, they may even support the views of the ruling party. Many issues raised in Parliament will also lie outside their fields of expertise but they will still be free to offer an opinion. But crucially, this will not be the main reason why they are appointed to Parliament. An NMP should not make it his or her job to campaign for political causes, whether it is a certain welfare policy, or economic policy or even something as mundane as building certain infrastructure in certain constituencies. An NMP should not try to pretend to represent the will of the people, because he does not, having not been popularly elected. An NMP's main job would be to ably represent his field of expertise for which he was appointed for and knowing this will allow him or her to function more effectively both in Parliament as well as in the eyes of the public. Sir, I thus recommend that in making NMPs a permanent feature of Parliament, that

their role be clearly and unambiguously defined.

Sir, NMPs have been labouring under a very large albatross around their necks, being misconstrued as back-door opposition Members of Parliament by segments of the public. I feel that the making of NMPs a permanent feature of Parliament is good as long as the NMPs' functions are clearly defined. If not, not only will NMPs be "Nobody’s MPs" but, worse, unwanted Members of Parliament, neither birds nor beasts, but bats ostracised and ignored by all sides.

With this, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

4.52 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to justify our existence. [Laughter].

I stand in support of this Bill, which abolishes the requirement for a resolution to be passed by the Parliament before Nominated Members of Parliament (NMP) may be appointed. With this amendment, the NMP Scheme will now be entrenched as part of the Constitution.

I have followed the debates on this issue and noted the opposition to the NMP Scheme in previous parliamentary debates. The main contentions were in two primary areas. First, that the NMPs were not elected by Singaporeans and, therefore, inclusion of NMPs in Parliament undermines the democratic process. Second, that the NMPs were not accountable to constituents and, therefore, there is concern about the relevance and value that NMPs bring to the House.

With your permission, Sir, I would like to address these concerns from an NMP's perspective. First, on the concern that

the presence of NMPs undermines the democratic process. NMPs do not replace elected Members of Parliament (MPs). MPs continue to be voted in by constituents and the presence of the nine NMPs do not compromise or replace the number of MPs in the House. As NMPs are non-partisan, we do not replace either PAP MPs or Opposition MPs. Even with the inclusion of NMPs in the House, Singaporeans continue to vote for their MPs in every General Election. The democratic process of free elections has never been compromised. I have also read arguments that the NMP Scheme is used to placate the electorate’s desire for Opposition in the House and, therefore, the implication is that with the NMPs in place, the ruling party will continue its dominance in Singapore politics. Personally, I find little merit in this allegation for it undermines the intellect of the electorate. Singaporeans will vote for the political party that best represents their interests and ideals. The presence of NMPs does not feature into the equation in their consideration.

The second set of concerns centres the discourse on the relevance and social significance of NMPs. With your permission, Sir, I would like to address this now. As an NMP, I believe I have a unique and distinct role in Parliament. I agreed to and accepted the nomination from NUS because I believe that I can add value to the discourse in Parliament. Being non-partisan, when I debate on a Bill or raise issues to the House, it is done based on my concerns on the issues – in my case, as a sociologist. I have read criticisms that the non-partisan nature of NMP renders them ineffective as they end up sitting on the fence. This fence assumes that to make a contribution, one has to be either for or against an issue. I beg to differ from this stand. First, just because I am not the Member of the ruling party or of any Opposition party, does not mean I have no legitimate views. The existing political party certainly

cannot claim dominance over all view points, such that when you have a perspective, you must necessarily speak for one or against the other.

Second, precisely because I am non-partisan, it frees me to explore and research the issues from all possible socially significant angles. As a sociologist and an academic, I am informed by the research I do, which includes a thorough review of various perspectives on the issues, the data I have collected and the outcomes of analysis. Together with my NMP colleagues in this House, in the past 10 months or so that we have been in Parliament, we have contributed to raising parliamentary questions at every sitting, spoken on almost every Bill that was tabled and participated actively in the COS debates. Together, we have raised issues ranging from eldercare concerns, healthcare costs, work-life balance, effects of immigration, the place of arts in Singapore, grooming sports talent, and even the welfare of singles. Personally, I have learned a lot listening to my fellow NMPs. I hope the House sees us as having added value to the debates.

Because we do not belong to any political party, when I look at a social issue, I am not constraint by partisan concerns. Instead, I share my perspective as a sociologist. Similarly, my fellow NMPs bring to the debates their unique takes as business experts, sports professionals, representing the arts, the social services, or as independent political observers. Together, we bring alternative views to the House, raise the level of political discourse and add vibrancy to debates.

Personally, I would not have engaged in this level of discourse if not for the NMP scheme. So it will be ideal when Singaporeans are more willing to step up and be actively engaged in the democratic process. The day when we move into a two-party system where opposing voices

are more visible, we will not need NMPs or NCMPs anymore. But until we get there, the NMPs have a role to play.

As we move today to institutionalise the NMP scheme, I think it is important that we can evolve a system that will further legitimise the role of the NMPs. It is important that Singaporeans have a better understanding and appreciation of how NMPs are selected. To this effect, my comments are centered around concerns about transparency of selection of NMPs.

While self-nomination was an option, nominations were also invited from six functional groups – business and industry, labour, the professions, tertiary education institutions, social and community service organisations, and media, arts and sports organisations. My first observation is on the selection of the functional groups. How were the six functional groups determined as being the most relevant interest groups to contribute to representation of diverse and socially significant views to Parliament?

What are the criteria for selection of each NMP? In order for NMPs to be accepted by Singaporeans, it will be important that there is greater clarity of the requirements of the candidates. It will also help inform those who may be interested in stepping forward to serve. It is also important for Singaporeans to know what each NMP stands for. Therefore, we should know how each NMP was nominated and, particularly for self-nominated NMPs, what interest groups they represent and what are some concerns they wish to bring to the House.

This way, members of the public may also choose to engage these NMPs in discourse on issues they are concerned with.

Thus, my main question is: if we entrench the NMP scheme in Parliament, what are some measures that will be

taken to make the selection criteria more transparent so that Singaporeans will accept the NMPs as deserving of their privileged membership in Parliament? MPs who contest for their seats are held accountable to their constituents and to the party they represent. An important question arises for the NMPs – who are they accountable to?

On this final concern, if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House my personal perspective of accountability as an NMP. It is a tremendous honour and privilege to be a Member of this Parliament. My journey here involved the kind support of the University, particularly the Provost and President of the University who nominated me, my Head and my Dean who wrote the recommendation letters, my friends who affirmed my nomination, the committee who oversaw the nominations from the Institutes of Higher Learning, the Members of this House who commented on and endorsed my nomination and, finally, the Selection Committee who evaluated my case and made the final recommendation to the President of Singapore.

I feel a very strong sense of moral responsibility knowing that so many people had worked so hard to facilitate my journey here. Further, as I evaluate my privileged membership in this House, I am acutely aware that few fellow Singaporeans would enjoy this opportunity to speak directly on policy decisions at the highest level.

So I am struck by awe. And I feel a deep sense of responsibility to my country that I should make good use of this opportunity and that I must put in my best effort to add value to every discussion I can contribute meaningfully to.

Who am I accountable to? Personally, I hold myself accountable to all Singaporeans that I should stay informed about

parliamentary proceedings, participate meaningfully in debates whenever there is an opportunity to value-add to the discourse, be aware of the social issues that affect my fellow Singaporeans and raise these issues to the attention of the House.

As Mr Calvin Cheng has already highlighted, it is really hard work because we work alone especially when you are not a lawyer for the Bills are really difficult to comprehend. I dread preparation for the next session because we saw the chunks that were being passed down. But we accepted this appointment – all the NMPs in this House – and we would put this responsibility as first priority in our work schedule.

I want to thank Mr Alvin Yeo and Mr Christopher de Souza, my MP, for having spoken up in support of the NMPs. All said, I want to thank the Speaker and the House for this awesome privilege to be a Member of Parliament. And I want to assure all who are listening that though we were not voted in, we feel a strong sense of responsibility to Singaporeans. For this reason, we work very hard to learn more about issues that are raised in the House. We are mindful that this is a privilege and we will continue to work towards earning the trust and respect of Members and the public. [Applause.]

5.04 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to join in this debate.

I would like to first of all also thank Assoc. Prof. Straughan for a most eloquent description of the pressure and difficulty as well as the incredible privilege of our job as an NMP. I would like to assure the House that, like Assoc. Prof. Straughan and Mr Calvin Cheng, and, I am sure, my fellow NMPs, take our duties very seriously. Indeed, when I first came

into Parliament for my first sitting, I was struck by the sense of privilege and responsibility because I am here also to speak for the people.

Assoc. Prof. Straughan has spoken about accountability and how an NMP is accountable. For me, because I come from the Arts sector, it is quite clear that I do have people from the Arts who give me feedback and suggestions and all kinds of ideas. But our accountability really is to be responsible to Parliament which is the highest law-making body in the land and that is an immense responsibility which not every citizen has. So the onus is on us to do our homework, research and to talk to people. I am sure all of us, in our own ways, have done this – as Assoc. Prof. Straughan says, very often, alone or with very limited help. Many of us do enjoy support from the sector that we are from, whether it is informal network of support or, in the case of Assoc. Prof. Straughan or, indeed, myself, support of our employers which has been very important.

My purpose of speaking here today is not really about the NMP and the NCMP schemes. It is actually to ask about clarification for the abolishing of the Advisory Committee which advises the Minister for Home Affairs before he refuses any application for citizenship. And I suppose here it is where being an NMP is a good thing because when I was reading the Bill, I was thinking, "Okay. This looks very interesting. Let me have a closer look at this." And I feel that I have because I do not have a body of voters who requires me to be responsible to them or to win their votes over. I feel that I have the freedom to look into this.

As Minister Mah Bow Tan has pointed out, the Advisory Committee on Citizenship came into being with the Singapore Citizenship Bill of 1957. It was intended as a measure to deal with the large numbers of migrants in Singapore at

that time. The brief of the Advisory Committee appears to me, even today, to be a safeguard that ensures applicants for citizenship, who may be refused it for whatever reason, have a final avenue for their cases to be considered before a final irrevocable decision by the Minister. Since those days of the 1950s and 1960s, Singapore today is still a country with many migrants and, I am sure, many applications for citizenship. Migrants might be here to work, live, to make a home or some marriages with other Singaporeans. Citizenship was a very emotional issue and can affect the fabric of human relationship and society. Today, the process of applying for the citizenship is streamlined and straightforward. I have seen the forms and the procedures online and it is all very clear.

I would like to ask for further details or clarification on whether it is, indeed, because of the streamlined processes and efficiency of citizenship applications under the ICA and MHA, that there are fewer cases going up to the Advisory Committee or that its work is otherwise superseded or considered superfluous.

I am asking this because, as I have said, citizenship is a very emotional issue and it is now a topic that is hotly debated amongst Singaporeans. So this might seem like a very minor issue to bring up but it is something that caught my attention and I feel that the idea of citizenship also is something that the House is interested in.

Sir, I speak here as an ordinary citizen and as an NMP.

5.10 pm

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

I would first touch on the NMP provisions. The NMP Scheme was controversial when it was first introduced, but Nominated MPs are now very much part of the fabric of this House. The institution has earned its place because it has worked well. The Workers' Party says it opposes NMPs and I believe on the basis that NMPs have no electoral mandate. I find this very peculiar because NCMPs also do not have the mandate of the electorate because they did not succeed at the polls. The question also arises as to why the best loser cannot come from the ruling Party. The question also arises to why we set the very low threshold of 15% before a Member can be considered part of the NCMP scheme. But Ms Sylvia Lim did not let such technicalities stand in her way before she accepted her place as an NCMP. So what is the Opposition's real fear? I think it is obvious. It is that NMPs will outshine them in this House and make them relevant in the eyes of Singaporeans.

In fact, NMPs have done very well. If you recall, one NMP actually drafted an important piece of legislation, very controversial – the Maintenance of Parents Act. Others have moved relevant and thought-provoking motions such as the by-election motion, the three 777A debate, the debate on the Pledge. All these have generated much discussion and debate in this House. And just as important, they generated much discussion outside of this House. Singaporeans have participated in these debates and they have raised the general political awareness amongst Singaporeans. So NMPs have more than justified their existence. And their efforts only exposes the relative lack of contributions by Opposition MPs. So, to the Opposition MPs, I ask and I paraphrase the title of a well-known hit song, "What have you done for the people lately?".

Mr Speaker, I say we will be poorer without NMPs' participation in this House.

I therefore welcome the move to make them a permanent feature. But consistent with this recognition, we should review how they are selected. To occupy a seat in this House is a great honour and brings with it enormous responsibilities. An NMP wields considerable power. He is not bound by any Party Whip or discipline. He has the privilege of questioning the Government on any issue and may speak on any topic. He may also introduce new legislation and seek to amend existing laws.

Yet, so little is known about how NMPs are selected. Like the Member of Parliament for Tampines and Assoc. Prof. Straughan, I believe there should be more transparency in the process of selection. Let us start by disclosing to the public the names and backgrounds of all who apply. Candidates should also disclose to the public the reasons for applying and what their specific goals are, if selected. The public has a right to know what their interests are and what they stand for. Candidates from political parties must deliver on their Party's manifesto and campaign promises. How are NMPs accountable? How is the public going to understand the motivations and goals of a candidate unless he makes them clear?

Such basic information should be made public, unless there is good reason why they should not be. I cannot think of any good reason. The only plausible one is that such disclosure may discourage good people from applying as they may be concerned that they would lose "face" if they are not selected. That, in my view, is a poor reason. This is a public office and public scrutiny comes with the territory. As parliamentarians, we must stand by our convictions, regardless of pressure we may face from the media or any section of the public. We must be prepared to be criticised or even mocked for speeches we gave or positions we take. That is part and parcel of the political process. If an applicant fears the loss of "face", then he

does not belong in public office, and certainly not in this House.

Next, I touch on the amendment to increase the NCMP seats. The amendment is an unusual one because I do not know of any government in the world which amends the law to allow their opponents more seats in Parliament. But we should not be concerned by that. Different democracies have different methods of appointing their representatives. The UK has non-elected Ministers and a person does not need to win the popular vote in order to be the President of the United States.

So we have to decide what works for us. Over time, we have modified our Constitution to introduce the GRC system and the NMP system and we have allowed the best losers in an election to come in as NCMPs.

There is no doubt that MPs should ideally be elected, but it is also useful that we have a system that ensures that no one party will completely fill the seats in the House, regardless of what happens at the polls. Both NMPs and NCMPs serve that function. Perhaps one day, when other political parties become more established, this scheme will become a footnote in our history. But in the meantime, it serves a useful way of bringing diverse views into this House and to keep the ruling party on its toes.

The Workers' Party, Ms Sylvia Lim, says that she opposes the amendment and that NCMPs seats should not be increased, or they play no role in this House. I am a bit puzzled by this because that is not the position she took last year. During the debate on the President's Address, she said the following and I quote, "although the NCMPs can never replace having elected Opposition MPs, it is overall supportable because it will give greater recognition to the desire of voters who cast votes for Opposition candidates

in significant numbers which would otherwise be shut out in a pure first-past-the-post system. It will also facilitate Opposition parties serving the people in Parliament based on results obtained at General Elections". To be fair to her, I lifted this from the Workers' Party website and so it may not have been updated. But whatever the views, one thing is undeniable, having more seats in this House will give the Opposition a larger platform to inform Singaporeans of what they are about and they are capable of doing. The increase in the number of seats will also likely see the presence of other Opposition parties in this House, and so Singaporeans can judge which party plays that role better. Their performance will, no doubt, be taken into consideration at the following General Elections. But at the end of the day, the amendment only gives a platform. Whether it translates into a more robust and constructive debate is up to the NCMPs and the parties they represent. Singaporeans will be able to judge for themselves. So, I therefore urge the Opposition to support this change and regard it as the opportunity for larger representation, something which they have always craved.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to touch on some issues regarding the GRC system which Ms Sylvia Lim brought up in her speech. Now, I speak as a member of the minority community and the GRC system is an important component, I say, about our parliamentary system because it ensures minority representation in this House. What is troubling about the Workers' Party and other Opposition parties is that they have not suggested a concrete alternative. How do you ensure minority representation? They do not say or they give very wishy-washy ideas. Their main argument is that minority candidates have always been elected in the past and we should therefore feel

confident that this will always happen. I think that is a fallacy because race does matter and I do not think any of us can deny that.

Let me give you my personal experience and I see this when I do my walkabouts. No criticism of anyone but it is a fact of life. When I go door to door, knock on the door and the door opens, and if it is a Chinese speaking or non-English speaking person who will then stare at me and then immediately turn to my grassroots leader and say, "gen ta jiang, wo bu ke yi jiang ying yu ". And immediately a barrier comes up and I try my best in my terrible Mandarin – I speak a bit of Mandarin – and immediately the barrier melts away and some form of connection is reached. Then I speak some more and they realise that I cannot speak Mandarin at all. [Laughter. ] I am not suggesting – not for a moment – that any of them are racist. No. But there is some connection which you reach with someone who speaks your own language which cannot be underestimated.

The other false argument being made is that the majority of Singaporeans do not think this way. I say that it is false because you do not need the majority to think that way. In a very hotly contested election like what we have been seeing in the last few years, a swing of 5% to 10% may well be the election itself. So you do not need to appeal to all or the majority of Singaporeans, but so long as 5% or 10% believe that race is an issue, that could beat the election. So we cannot deny that position.

Now, do the Opposition themselves believe their own argument? Look at the facts, they do not believe in their own argument. In the last three General Elections, look at all the candidates they filed for the Single Member Constituencies. They have all been male Chinese – not even a woman – they do not even

put a woman in a Single seat. All of them had been male Chinese. So they do not believe in their own argument that race does not matter, they fight to win and they know what it takes to win.

So, I ask the Opposition not to engage in political or self-serving arguments. The question is: what system best works for us, what system best represents our multi-racial culture? And I think minority representation is important and, until and unless a better system is found, a GRC system ensures that and that is important for the make-up of Singapore.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Yes?

Sir, thank you for the opportunity to clarify what the Member has said about my speech. First of all, Sir, I have not changed my position at all. In fact, I have repeated what I have said in May, ie, that the NCMP position is supportable from the point of view that it gives effect to voters' aspirations because people have voted for NCMP in large numbers but it would never replace the elected MP scheme. It is a stop-gap measure because of the abuses of the GRC system that have taken place over years. And I never said in my speech that NCMPs play no role. I said that NCMP seats have a limited role and I went on to detail some of the limitations. So I think the Member is putting words into my mouth.

Thirdly, he asked me to clarify why I accepted the NCMP seat. Okay, we have traced the history from the time the NCMP scheme was first introduced, there were only single seats in 1984. Over the years the expansion of the mega GRCs and the gerrymandering have led us to come to the conclusion that the people's will has been suppressed at the GE and at every GE we will have to consider as a party whether the NCMP seats offered

should be accepted. We are not able to say in the future what the position will be but that is the situation.

Sir, next he asked whether the Opposition MPs are afraid of being outshone by the Nominated MPs because of our contributions. I think the Hansard can speak for itself what we have contributed to the parliamentary debate. Anyone who is interested can look to see how often we have filed questions or we have spoken, so I think that record stands by itself.

Fifth, as his colleague, Assoc. Prof. Straughan mentioned earlier, in any case during General Election the NMPs are irrelevant, Singaporeans will have to vote based on the political parties that contest. So I think the answer lies there.

Next, he talked about the GRC system. I am not sure whether, by his anecdote, he is concerned that if he were to defend in a single seat he would not be able to win his ward back. No doubt there will always be language issues but the question is: does that stop people from voting? Other countries – look at the USA – they have shown that they can elect an African American to be a President. Do you mean Singapore's population is not capable of looking beyond that when they vote for an MP? Do they not judge more than just race?

So, Sir, all in all, I think the Member has been rather unfair to me in his assessment.

Mr Kumar, do you want to seek clarification upon clarification?

Yes, clarification.

First, Assoc. Prof. Straughan is not my colleague. [Laughter.] And, second, would the NCMP confirm that what I read out represents her own speech? Because I have taken it directly from the website

and if there is a misprint then, perhaps, she should tell us.

Sir, as I have said earlier, I have not changed my position. As far as I am concerned, the NCMPs who contest in an unfair GRC system have some support from the public, so there is some merit. In fact, I think PAP MPs have even supported that argument to say that there is some mandate from the people in that sense. But what we are looking for is really a system that allows a contest that is fair and balanced and I think none of us wants to come in as NCMP as an aim. We would like to represent the people in the fullest way possible, we are prepared to work for their vote, but what we want is a fair system.

5.24 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, be it elected MPs, NCMPs or Nominated MPs, I think our accountability and our responsibility is towards the people of Singapore. I think that is the most important.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill, however, I would like to raise some concerns.

I would like to quote one of the papers that I have read in a medical journal recently. It relates to baby walkers and for many years parents believed in the benefits of baby walkers as they enable the precocious locomotion in the very young, otherwise pre-locomotor infants. Many thought that the baby walkers will enable to their infants to walk earlier. However, a study published in the Journal of Developmental Behavioural Paediatrics in 1999 reported baby walker-experienced infants sat, crawled and walked later than the no-walker controls and, worse still, they even scored lower

on the Bayley score of mental and motor development.

Some may argue that the Non-Constituency MP scheme is providing support for the development of Opposition in our political scene but just like the baby walker, it may actually retard the growth and development of the Opposition movement instead. The ruling party, PAP, was once an Opposition party too. It swept into power by the choice of the people. It is ironic that this Government is looking for ways to develop our Opposition in Singapore today. In my opinion, the best stimulus for development of Opposition is a bad government. No, we certainly hope we need not to go so far to encourage the development of Opposition. Even if the ruling party today enlarged the GRC scheme to have a 84-member GRC. If it is truly bad, I am sure the people would vote PAP out even if there are 84-member GRCs.

Although I had my reservations about the NCMP scheme initially, I must admit that it does provide an opportunity for candidates who were narrowly defeated at the polls a chance to show their worth in Parliament. Over the last 10 years, we have had two NCMPs in Parliament. The first is Mr Steve Chia and the second is Ms Sylvia Lim. So, I would like to ask how well have our NCMPs performed so far even as we question the performance of our NMPs? Are they so good that we need to increase our NCMPs provision to nine at this point in time? We have not even increased the provision to six that was provided by the Constitution in the first place.

In a democratic system, the one-man-one-vote system determines the winner. The NCMP scheme actually runs contrary to the democratic one-man-one-vote system as voters do not really determine who are the top losers. Perhaps we should have a one-man-two-votes system

whereby one vote is the primary vote to decide the elected MP and the second vote is a secondary vote for voters to decide whether the candidate deserves to be a NCMP if he fails in his or her bid for an elected seat. The voters now may give both primary and secondary votes to the one candidate or to different candidates. In this way, the NCMPs will have a direct mandate from voters.

Although the NCMPs do not represent any constituency but they do have a responsibility to voters who voted for them. Currently, it is stipulated that they must garner not less than 15% votes before they can be admitted into this Parliament. The 15% benchmark, in my opinion, is too low. It is only 2.5% higher than the point whereby the candidate loses his or her deposit. It should be higher, maybe a minimum of 25% or even 30%, for a candidate to be considered as a NCMP.

A candidate from the ruling party who lost narrowly certainly has more mandate compared to an Opposition candidate who lost by a wider margin. For example, in the last General Election, PAP candidate, Sitoh Yih Pin actually garnered 44% of the seats while Ms Sylvia Lim garnered 43% in Aljunied GRC. In fact, does Sitoh Yih Pin have more mandate to be in this Parliament compared to Ms Sylvia Lim? I am not sure.

The current proposed NCMP scheme disregards the voters’ choice. Perhaps the NCMP scheme should be made non-partisan. It should be based purely on the nine highest losers, regardless of party affiliation. I understand that the scheme was devised to ensure there will always be voices from the Opposition parties in Parliament. If we make this scheme non-partisan, even if one party is able to garner all elected seats in the Government, there will still be nine NCMPs from the Opposition. If the Opposition candidates are successful in

winning some elected seats, then there will already be opposing voices in Parliament. Our objectives can still be achieved if we make NCMPs non-partisan.

I acknowledge that there are dissenting views which we must not ignore, however small they may be. In fact, the Government has put in so much effort to show different view points that we even have Nominated MPs in this House. Certainly I must say their presence has enabled us to hear views from different perspectives and enriched our debates in this Parliament.

I hope the Government can consider the proposals (i) of the one-man-two-votes system; (ii) raise the minimum stipulated percentage votes garnered by a candidate before he or she can be considered as NCMP, and (iii) consider making NCMP a non-partisan scheme.

It is not my intention to forestall the Government’s effort to allow for dissenting voices to be heard in this House. Rather, we need to be mindful that in doing so we are not ignoring the people's voice and their choice. After all, the Parliament belongs to the people and it should be the people who will determine the Members who speak in Parliament on their behalf.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, you wanted to raise a clarification earlier on. No? Mr Zaqy.

5.30 pm

Sir, the amendment to the Constitution to allow up to nine Non-Constituency Members of Parliament in this House is a bold move and one which will no doubt change our political landscape. I personally believe that this will encourage more openness and diversity. Given PAP's dominance in Parliament since 1965, I note that younger Singaporeans are also

increasingly aspiring for more diverse voices in Parliament.

I am glad that the Government recognises the trend and indeed it takes great courage to consider amending this Bill to accommodate this. I do not think I have come across any government that has the courage and belief that diluting its influence is for the better interests of the nation.

Given the political landscape that we are in, the changes are well-intended. But we must also look at the implications and what I hope is that the Government has been rigorous in its thought process and is confident that this, if executed for a long term, is for the betterment of Singapore.

I am one that believes that a diverse mix of good views and positions by good people with a heart for Singapore will be good for this nation. Robust debates and heated exchanges of views are certainly welcome and are part of our processes in check and balance in this House.

My primary concern is whether the increased voices will necessarily mean greater transparency and constructive debates in the Parliament and for the people. If we wanted alternative views, the Opposition MPs who have won seats have the opportunity to say their piece. The NMP scheme, which we are about to make permanent with this Bill, is also another opportunity to offer diverse views and sometimes representative opinions of their own set of vertical "constituents".

So, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: how different is this intent, by allowing more NCMPs to join Parliament? It is not conspiracy theory, but is there a deeper rationale that was considered in wanting more diverse representation of views?

Let me elaborate a little further on my question. Yes, we want diverse voices. But voices without accountability and commitment to a constructive plan for Singapore will not benefit the people. We need to distinguish between voices, ideas and having constructive and alternative policies that will be beneficial to Singaporeans.

My biggest concern, as we expand the NCMP scheme, is accountability. Yes, we allow NMPs to hold Parliamentary seats without a constituency. But their appointment is based on their position and expertise and, I hope, objectivity, to represent a particular segment of the community. So, we give that leeway.

However, with the NCMP scheme, we are opening up to nine seats to members from the Opposition parties to have a say in Parliament. Now this involves political posturing, and one can criticise the Government over and over again very easily, without really being accountable to the people.

Sir, I give you an example. It is easy to criticise Minister Mah Bow Tan or the Ministry of National Development for the higher prices of HDB flats today or even its supply. But it is tougher to put up an alternative position that can stand up to public scrutiny – that will work, that can balance the budget and that can be accepted by Singaporeans. Many political players are probably in the earlier bucket. You can say all you want but try to put up a position that you can go back to your constituents at the end of a day and say I stand up for this, I believe in this, and I will execute this. For example, take the case just now, do you now say: do we devalue flat prices today to ensure that prices go lower? Try to go to your constituents and ask them that. I think they will say "no". Do you favour increasing the subsidies for high-income couples instead of putting money into the bottom 20% of income earners? Try to go

back to your constituents and see what they say.

A political observer or critic can criticise everything from how unsympathetic the Government has been or how the statistics can be different if one changes the base year. But an elected MP, with constituents to answer to thinks differently. The elected MP is accountable to the full spectrum of constituents that he or she represents. It is not just one segment, not just one position – he has to be able to stand by what he or she says and represents to get the vote. So, it is curious that we debate the position of whether we admit more NCMPs or not in this Parliament. Well, today I think we have seen some Members who are still not really convinced of their contributions – that we have an NCMP who compares the legitimacy of an Elected MP, whether a GRC or single seat, to see him or her as though it is the same level as an Opposition MP who is given a seat despite losing the election contest. Elected MPs in general, even those from walkover GRCs, are not just expected to represent the people's view, to scrutinise the executive Government, but they do represent people in the constituency – real people and no ideologies. At least the PAP still strives to contest all seats available – single or GRC seats – and re-contest to win.

Whatever the comments on whether it is abuse of the GRC scheme or whether it is gerrymandering or changing the GRC boundaries, the bottom line is this: to take a football analogy, if you cannot play the game properly, do not blame the pitch. I hope that we consider the impact on the quality of debates and constructive benefits to Singaporeans as we allow more NCMPs. It is also important that we ensure that debates are professional and constructive.

Sir, I would like to suggest putting more differences between elected MPs

and non-elected MPs beyond just the right to vote on constitutional matters or money supply matters, although this sounds a bit like your citizen versus PR differentiation. But I think elected MPs have to more accountable to their constituents and, therefore, should be given more time to address the issues that they raise. Sir, I would like to ask that we consider amending the Standing Orders:

limit the time given for debates and COS. So, if an elected MP gets, say, 18 to 20 minutes, perhaps a non-elected MP should get 10 to15 minutes?

limit the number of oral parliamentary questions. An elected MP needs more time to represent the constituents; and

tighten the Standing Orders to ensure that debates and clarifications are constructive, and not political airing or advertisement. Sir, my final point is that as we try to find diverse voices, we have to ensure that we do not degrade the standing of this House. It is not easy to find good political talent, good people who are committed to serve the people and the nation. As we give more political candidates access to Parliament, we must ensure that we do not become the Champions League of politics. It used to be that the European Champions League was only made up of champions from representative European footballing nations. But, today, to submit to the demands of TV entertainment and advertising, even if a team finishes third or fourth, it still gets into the Champions League. We are not a House for Entertainment and we have to do justice as

representatives of the people. So, would the Government consider tightening up the criteria for selection of NCMPs? And I agree with my colleagues Mr Alvin Yeo and Mr Hri Kumar earlier on that you may get diminishing returns or support as you move down the line to the seventh or ninth NCMP. Sir, I think, we should also put a minimum percentage of votes beyond 15%, perhaps 25% to 30% to ensure that at least those in Parliament enjoy a significant representation of the people that have chosen them to come into Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I continue in Malay? (In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] The amended Bill that was presented is a bold move that will certainly change our nation's political landscape, and encourage more views and openness. With the PAP’s dominance in Parliament since Singapore's independence, we are seeing an increasing desire for Parliament to be represented by more diverse views. Hence, the proposed amendments come with good objectives. However, we must also look at its implications and consequences. We must also look at its consequence from a wider perspective rather than just a way to encourage greater political participation. Some of the questions include: what is the aim of expanding the NCMP scheme other than to ensure diverse voices in Parliament? Will this not further facilitate the participation of the Opposition’s representatives, even though they have failed to win votes? What is the implication on our efforts to search for talented people who are committed to the party's and nation’s struggle? This is different from Members of Parliament elected by the people who are

fully accountable to their constituencies and all voters. Furthermore, we already have the processes and the infrastructure to encourage views and feedback among new media platforms and others, and we must strengthen this process further.

(In English): Sir, I have no doubts that the amendment Bill will encourage more political participation and, hopefully, greater political interests among Singaporeans. It may well satisfy our voters' desire for more checks and balances as we endeavour to stress the importance of more transparency and openness. But, at the same time, I hope that the Minister considers the impact on the quality of proceedings and the accountability of elected MPs in this House to their constituents as we allow more non-elected voices in this House through the NCMP backdoor. With this, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

*Cols. 181-182.

Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken up on the subjects of NCMP, NMP, video-conferencing and Citizenship Advisory Committee, and I will deal with each of them in reverse order.

First, as "Mr Mah" speaking, I would like to talk about the Citizenship Advisory Committee (CAC). [Laughter.] Some people do mistake me to be Mr Mah. I hope they do not do that anymore after this.

The CAC was set up in the 1950s –1957 to be precise – to deal with a very particular situation at that time when we did not have any concept of citizenship – no citizenship rights. But because we had to elect a Legislative Assembly, the Citizenship Bill was passed in order to register voters. To ensure that no one

who had been in Singapore for some time, even though they might be migrants, would be denied the right to be voters, the Committee was set up to independently assess every rejection. But today after 50 years, I do not think we really need this anymore. Besides, the process of selection of approval of application for citizenship is quite rigorous. We have decided therefore to abolish the CAC. It does not mean that those who were rejected cannot appeal to the Minister. The avenue is still open and those who feel that they really deserve to be re-considered, by all means, appeal to the Minister.

Next, on the subject of video-conferencing, Ms Sylvia Lim said that this is against the rights of the accused persons, and Mr Hri Kumar asked for clarifications on how to make sure that their rights are also protected. Let me start off by saying that when an accused person is brought before the court, he is under the close guard of the police officer in the dock. The magistrate at first mention will simply hear the case against the person in custody and then decide whether the person should be further remanded. The period when the person is to be brought before the court is 48 hours. That will not change with video-conferencing. What will change is the way the person is presented to the magistrate. The proposal here is to have video-conferencing instead of bringing the person physically to the court. Is this very much different other than that the person presented in court, or in the Police Division via video conference? Well, let me assure Members that even if the person is presented to the magistrate in the Police Division via video conference, he will be in a separate room. There will be no police officer present, and he will be able to see the happenings in court, including the full visual of the court, of the public gallery, of the judge, of his defence lawyer, and of the prosecution. In other words, he can see virtually

everybody. In fact, he will have a sharper view of everyone. And as for the judge, he too will have a very clear view of the person in custody as the screen in the court is 103 inches wide. So it is a big enough screen for the magistrate to see the full view of a person in custody or a partial view if the magistrate were to zoom in or zoom out on the person in custody. So, there is no question that the judge will not be able to see if a person in custody is under duress. He will be able to suss it out straightaway. There is no lack of opportunity for a person in custody to complain to the judge that he has been coerced. He can always raise the point when he is in the Police Division or he can make a complaint subsequently when he appears in court. So, there is no derogation of the rights of the person in custody.

Now, on the issue of NMPs, there are questions raised about how NMPs are selected, the transparency of the selection, whether the NMP scheme is still relevant and, of course, there are also MPs who talked about the relevance and importance of NMPs in this House.

The NMP scheme is clearly relevant and legitimate because it is provided for in the Constitution. We have debated this for a long time. We have had this system in the House for 20 years. NMPs have performed well and, at every term, there is no lack of individuals coming forward to be considered as NMPs. So, I think there is no need to further elaborate or document this because the process of appointing NMPs is clearly laid out in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution and the proceedings of the Special Select Committee are presented to this House after the Committee has recommended to the President to appoint the NMPs. And I believe the Special Select Committee on Nominations for NMP Appointment has done its job very rigorously, and it has been conscientious. I had been a member of the Special Select Committee for many

terms and I can testify to that. Mr Low Thia Khiang has also been a member of that Special Select Committee and he knows how the process is conducted. I believe he too thinks that the system is rigorous enough and the criteria are quite clear. Ms Irene Ng wants to ensure that the quality of NMPs is not debased in future. Let me assure her that that will not be the case and perhaps, I will suggest to the Leader of the House to, in future, consider her also to be on the Special Select Committee. Then she could see how the NMP selection is done.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan also asked about the functional groups and how they are selected. Well, the groups that we have identified – there are six groups and we will add a seventh, which is the people group – are simply a means to systematically ensure that we reach out to different sectors of our society to find individuals who are keen, interested and able to contribute to the proceedings in this House. While there may be many avenues now for people to air their views, like Mdm Ho Geok Choo has suggested, writing letters to the Forum page, taking part in other kinds of forums to speak up or in REACH forums or feedback, etc, these are quite different from being in this House to take part in the debate on important issues affecting the nation.

The number of nominees coming forward, actually, has been quite consistent. Let me just give Members some examples. In 2002, we had 33 nominations; in 2004, we had 37 nominations; in 2007, we had 48 nominations; and in 2009, we had 46 nominations. So, there has been a sustained interest among members of the public as well as those nominated by the functional groups. And I would say that most of the nominees came from members of the public at large and not from the functional groups.

Assoc. Prof. Straughan, Mr Calvin Cheng and Mr Hri Kumar also asked that we know what each NMP stands for and who they represent. While NMPs may have certain issues that they want to raise or feel strongly about, they are not appointed to represent any functional groups. They are there because they have interesting views to present to Parliament and we think that some of these voices on important national issues should be allowed to be heard in Parliament. So, they represent themselves; they do not represent any functional groups.

Mdm Ho is concerned that in the event that we have a large number of Opposition MPs already and that the ruling party has got a slim majority, whether we still need the nine NMPs. Well, the scenario underscores the importance and the need for selecting NMPs who are non-partisan and who will be able to provide an alternative view, in addition to the Opposition MPs or those of the Government. I believe Mdm Ho Geok Choo also asked for a residency period of 10 years be required before a nominee can be considered as an NMP of this House. I think there are already enough safeguards in the Constitution now as well as in the Parliamentary Elections Act for the candidacy in elections. In particular, the Constitution requires that a person has to be a resident in Singapore for at least 10 years before he or she can even be elected or nominated as a Member of Parliament.

I believe I have dealt with the issue of NMPs. If not, Members can always bring this up again and I will be happy to clarify.

On the subject of NCMPs, Mdm Ho Geok Choo is concerned that the scheme will allow the entry of non-credible candidates who lost their deposits. Let me assure her that this will not happen because, as I said, the Parliamentary Elections Act already requires an NCMP to

at least hold 15% of the valid votes cast. This is, as noted by Dr Lim Wee Kiak, 2.5% above the votes required for the candidate not to lose his deposit. As suggested by Mr Zaqy Mohamad, there is already a minimum percentage of votes required of NCMPs to join this House. And both Members suggested that we should raise the threshold. I think the threshold for now, as we see it, is adequate. But I will not rule out the possibility that we will increase the threshold after the next GE, depending on the outcome of the new NCMP scheme. Dr Lim Wee Kiak also suggested that the highest polling candidate who failed in his election bid, regardless of the party, be made an NCMP. In other words, he calls it non-partisan. Actually, the moment a candidate stands for election, he represents a political party, and he will be partisan.

The purpose of the NCMP scheme is really to ensure the representation of a minimum number of Opposition members. It is not to increase the number of Government ruling party members to come into Parliament. For the ruling party, they already have the majority and I do not think we need more of them in this House. So the purpose of the NCMP scheme is really to make sure that the losing Opposition candidate has a chance to be in Parliament. And we say Opposition candidates because they represent a political platform. As for independent candidates, they are not eligible to be appointed even if they poll a high enough votes among the best losers to become NCMPs.

Dr Lim also suggested having a one-man-two-vote system with a secondary vote for voters to decide whether a candidate deserves to be an NCMP. I think the current system is simple. People can understand it and the process for identifying an NCMP is easy enough to implement. To have different kinds of

voting, multi-ballot for different purposes, will tend to confuse the public. I think we will keep this system as it is, not that we have not considered it. We have considered different ways of choosing people in Parliament, but we decided to have a simple system instead.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad also asked about the difference in the intent behind the NCMP and the NMP schemes, and he and Mr Alvin Yeo were concerned whether Parliament will be less productive with the presence of NCMPs. Mr Yeo also asked whether increasing more NCMPs will make for a more broad diversity of views and better quality of debate. He thinks that it will simply lead to having more unelected Opposition members without really improving the diversity of views or the quality of debate. Well, the PAP has 81 PAP MPs. I do not think there is a lack of diversity of views, even though we may share the same goals, mission and platform, but sometimes we do have different views as well. So, having nine NCMPs, including elected Opposition members, is not a bad thing. I think it does give the Opposition, whether as NCMP or elected Opposition, a chance to articulate what they stand for, what policies they have, what programmes they have, that can make a better life for Singaporeans. And Singaporeans can better assess whether, indeed, these are the people worthy to become elected MPs in future elections. Otherwise, we will just be debating among ourselves – PAP members. And we know the sentiments of Singaporeans – they do want a strong and dependable government, but they also want to hear some Opposition voices, not just NMPs' voices, not just PAP Members who speak like Opposition. They want to see some real Opposition MPs in Parliament. So, the purpose of this NCMP scheme is to allow more of these Opposition members to come in, if we do not have enough Opposition members elected into Parliament.

Mdm Ho is also concerned that the Opposition uses the NCMP scheme to band together and put forth causes or demands in an un-parliamentary manner. Some other MPs are also concerned about the NCMPs misconducting themselves. I do not think we need to worry about this because Parliament's Standing Orders are quite clear as to the conduct and behaviour of MPs and, at the same time, when a complaint is made to the Committee of Privileges, the matter will be looked into under the Parliamentary Privileges, Immunities and Powers Act. All these will be enough to regulate any un-parliamentary or disruptive behaviour of any MP.

Let me now address Ms Sylvia Lim's questions. Ms Sylvia Lim started off by saying that the Workers’ Party opposes the whole Bill, not just NCMP, not just NMP, but also the other two issues even if it covers two other topics which are not related to the election. Ms Sylvia Lim talked about the GRC system and complained that the GRC system plus what she called gerrymandering in the boundary delineation have been unfair to the Opposition. We know the history of the GRC. Long ago, we decided that because people do vote along racial lines, we decided to have a system that will ensure that Parliament will always have MPs representing the minority races. This is the only way to ensure that. Whether it is the PAP or the Opposition party contesting in an election, they will have to field a multi-racial team in the GRC. A single-constituency system will not enable this to happen, no matter what some may think.

Ms Sylvia Lim said that we introduced the NCMP system because of the PAP losing a constituency in Anson in 1981. I think she probably flatters the Workers’ Party for having such an influence. The PAP had already thought about making

sure that we do have some Opposition voices in Parliament way back in 1984, not just because we have lost an election but because the people want to have a strong government.

And the results testify to that in subsequent years – in 1988, 1991 and up to the last election in 2006, people continued to vote for the PAP as the Government and, at most, four Opposition MPs were elected in the 1991 election. And in all the other GEs, only two were returned.

So the NCMP scheme has a purpose. So far, it has allowed only one NCMP to come into Parliament but, with this amendment, it will allow up to nine NCMPs to come into Parliament. It shows that the reason why we have the NCMP scheme is to enable alternative, differing, opposing voices from the Opposition to come into the Parliament and convince Singaporeans that their policies and programmes are better than those of the PAP. And in the last 20-odd years, people have seen what the Opposition can do and they continue to vote for the PAP.

Therefore, I would suggest that for the Opposition parties, they should not blame it on the NCMP system, they should not blame it on the GRC system or on boundary delineation or gerrymandering. Ultimately what counts is the kind of candidates you have contesting elections, whether they are able to secure the support of the majority of Singaporeans in order for them to get elected into Parliament. If the Opposition cannot do that, please do not use the excuses of GRC or boundary delineation to complain that they have no chance.

In fact, every political party setting out to contest in an election should really field their best possible candidate to ensure that they form the Government. And when the PAP forms the Government, it has clear legitimacy and mandate and moral authority. So to argue with that, we do not have the mandate or legitimacy, I

think is a fallacy. It is wrong. People have returned us to power with a strong mandate for many years.

For the Workers' Party, I think what they should do is to look out for good candidates to contest and convince the voters that they are the right party to replace the PAP Government. There is no question about what we have done.

Whether a bigger GRC suppresses the Opposition or not and whether it is unfair to the Opposition or not, if there is a groundswell against the PAP, regardless of the kind of candidates we have or the quality candidates we have, people will still vote against the PAP. In fact, in two elections, in Eunos and in Cheng San GRC, the Workers' Party nearly won. So is that the fault of the GRC? Definitely not. Surely, after almost 15, 20 years, Workers' Party should really reflect on those elections and consider how to win more seats in the next election. I think that is the way to do so, not to complain that the NCMP system has been unfair to them.

Since Workers' Party feels that this NCMP system is not quite democratic and is not what they will support – in fact, they do not support this whole Bill at all – then, perhaps, I would like to ask Mr Low Thia Khiang, as the leader – for once I thought Mr Low Thia Khiang has abdicated that position to Ms Sylvia Lim, because Ms Sylvia Lim, as an NCMP, spoke up for the Workers' Party instead of Mr Low Thia Khiang against the NCMP scheme – whether if, in the next election, the Workers' Party or the Opposition parties do not win nine seats, will the Workers' Party take up the NCMP seat? I think Singaporeans and the Members here would like to hear the answer. If the Workers' Party is so fundamentally against the NCMP scheme, would Ms Sylvia Lim now say that she will no longer come back to Parliament? I hope not. So,

I would like to ask Mr Low or maybe Ms Sylvia Lim, because now she is the new leader, to tell us if the Workers' Party will take up the NCMP seat if we do not have nine elected Opposition Members.

Sir, the Workers' Party Chairman has put our position very clearly across to the House why the Workers' Party is not supporting the amendment to the Constitution and why the Workers' Party accepted NCMP seats after 1984, which was when the electoral system changed from a single constituency to a GRC system. It is suffice to state that we are helping, in fact, the situation created by the PAP to make Parliament more representative. And I think some Members suggested, perhaps, Ms Sylvia Lim may have contradicted herself because she said earlier in this House, that the increase in number of NCMPs was supportable. No, there is no contradiction. She had said very clearly in her speech, the PAP is trying to make a bad situation better. The increase to nine NCMPs is an improvement. But, fundamentally, it does not make it better because a political system should be robust enough through the electoral system to have proper representation of different views, different sectors of society in Parliament rather than the NCMP scheme. Yes, it is through a back door but that is the situation, that is not a system which we should support.

The Deputy Prime Minister wanted to know whether or not the Workers' Party will take up the NCMP seat after the next election if not elected. I can tell him categorically that I will not take up the NCMP seat if I am not elected at the next election. I believe in the principle and I think all this while, this is what we have been doing. As to whether or not other candidates in the Party, after the next election, will take up the NCMP seat, that has to be decided by the Party. So that is the position.

I really do not know what is his real position. Now he says that the Workers' Party got to make a bad situation good by accepting the NCMP system even though they oppose it in principle, against his own personal belief and conviction. If you remember, Mr Jeyaretnam contested the election in 1984. He won. Mr Chiam See Tong also won and there was, therefore, a seat for an NCMP. Mr Jeyaretnam's Party colleague, Mr M P D Nair became the best loser in Jalan Kayu. He lost to Mr Heng Chiang Meng by a few hundred votes but Mr Jeyaretnam, as Party leader, decided that Mr M P D Nair cannot take up that seat. Now, for Mr Low Thia Khiang he says he will not take up the seat, he has allowed Ms Sylvia Lim to take up the seat. Well, for Ms Sylvia Lim she said she also opposes the Bill and also does not like this idea of the NCMP, then why is she here or even speaking on this Bill? Maybe I would like to hear from Ms Sylvia Lim.

Sir, I thought I have made my position clear in my speech earlier but I will repeat the same. You recall that we oppose the proposal to entrench the NCMP system even further by increasing the number from six to nine because, fundamentally, we do not believe that this is the way the system should move forward. That is why we are voting against the amendment. However, as I mentioned in my speech, the Deputy Prime Minister earlier claimed or accused us of making excuses after our GRC losses, but my question is: are we wrong to say that there is gerrymandering? He mentioned Eunos and Cheng San GRC and our narrow losses there but what happened to those constituencies now? Are they still intact?

So, Sir, coming back to the final question of NCMP, as mentioned by Mr Low earlier, at each GE we will have to look at the situation and assess. And at the last GE, the Party decision was that

we should take up the NCMP seat because of the circumstances and the fact that we had a sizeable number of people in Aljunied GRC who wanted us elected, so on that basis we thought that we could serve the people in some way by doing so. So that is why I am here.

Sir, I am not clear exactly what principle Ms Sylvia Lim or the Workers' Party stands for. Is it that in principle it is wrong to accept nine NCMP posts, assuming that the PAP won all the seats and in principle it is all right to accept one NCMP seat and not nine?

Clarification, Sir. I believe it is quite clear in the Party Chairman's speech that we oppose this Bill on the fundamental principle of how a political system should work. So, there is difference between how a political system work in principle and the NCMP as a scheme. I think I made it very clear here. And by introducing NCMP scheme, the PAP is trying to have their cake and eat it to tell Singaporeans, "Look – let us vote for PAP, as the Government, and we will provide you with NCMPs." But that is not how a healthy political system should work. If you want to have a robust political system, to have checks and balance, to have a proper safeguard for the rights of Singaporeans and, in case the PAP become corrupt one day, there is some form of alternative and some form of mechanism to check, then you really have to build up a system in which the Opposition can be elected and can be properly represented in this House rather than a system encouraging or incentivising Singaporeans to vote for the PAP, who will provide you with NCMPs. The NCMP scheme does not strengthen the muscle of the Opposition. An elected MP in the Opposition having the ground, could have a better assessment of the situation, will give you a better rationale, a better argument in Parliament than just an NCMP.

I think, first, let us not forget why we need a government. We need a government to run the country, create a better society. And how do you get a better government? You get a better government by having political parties that set themselves out to form the government. We do not, just because we are individual MPs, get our people to elect us because we serve their individual interests. We elect MPs as a group, as a party, so that they can form the government. That is the very basis in which the government should function. So for the Workers' Party, if they think upon an alternative system in case one day the PAP turns corrupt, then it is time for them to start looking out for enough candidates to contest elections and challenge the Government in position to say that they can make a better government. I think that is the basis on which to try to convince the voters. It does not matter how the constituencies are carved out. If there is bad ground sentiment, you can have one constituency, 10 different constituencies into one or the whole of 84 becoming one constituency, people will still vote out the PAP. So, ultimately, it depends on the candidates and, at the same time, the party platform. Most importantly is the party that will form the government. Either the Workers' Party is against the NCMP system or supports the NCMP system, I think the line is very clear. You cannot have, on the one hand, "In principle, I object"; on the other hand, "I am quite happy to sit here and debate". There may be nine of them or two of them or whatever it is. What the Government tries to do in this situation is not to have the cake and eat it. We are trying to make the cake bigger and give you a piece of it.

Yes, Mr Low.

Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his encouragement to the Workers' Party to try to form an alternative government.

But what he is saying is to make the cake bigger, but do not forget your cake remains the same because the elected Members remain at the same number. What you are trying to do is probably to add some dressing, but the Workers' Party does not look at dressing.

No, we do not need the Workers' Party here to be a wallflower. The question is very simple. Is the Workers' Party going to take up the seats if we do not have enough Opposition Members elected to this Parliament at the next General Election? That is very clear-cut, simple, straightforward. Either a "yes" or "no", but not just taking up one seat and not eight – it cannot be that way.

Clarification, Sir. I thought it was very clear that there are two separate things. One is the system that you have envisaged and wanted to legislate, and the other is the mechanism. Sir, I do not understand what the Minister is talking about.

Maybe he cannot understand what he is trying to say but let me put it this way. He does not mind coming here as an NCMP or his Party does not mind, even though the Party will vote against this Bill today. That basically is it.

Sir, as I have explained, yes, we will vote against it in-principle because that is not a system we should entrench as a political system. But, as a matter of fact, in reality, this is a situation that we have to face. It is the same as us opposing the GRC system, but it does not mean that we do not field candidates in GRCs. That is the same situation. There is no contradiction.

Mr Low can easily refuse to take up the seat if,

unfortunately, he happens to be one of the best losing candidates and not be brought back to Parliament.

Is he asking whether I would take up the seat? No. I would not take up the NCMP seat. Let us make it very clear.