Sir, I next move on to
the changes of the composition of Parliament.
First, entrenching Nominated MPs in the system.
The Workers’ Party’s position on NMPs remain 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 their entrenchment.
I will focus the rest of my speech on the change to
Non-Constituency MPs.
Sir, clause 3 amends Article 39 to increase the maximum number
of NCMPs of Parliament from six to nine. The Workers Party will
oppose the amendments on the fundamental principle that having
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 will 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 a 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?
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 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 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 the Workers’ Party secretary-general, the late Mr JB
Jeyaretnam. However, the NCMP scheme did not stop the people from
voting for the opposition. In the 1984 GE, Mr Jeyaretnam retained
his Anson seat with a larger majority and in addition, Mr Chiam See
Tong won convincingly in Potong Pasir with 60 per cent. Earlier DPM
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 previous GEs. The GRCs started with three-member
groupings at that GE, 1988. The Workers Party team at Eunos GRC,
consisting of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Francis Seow and Mr Khalid Babu,
secured 49 per cent of the vote against the PAP team.
By the next GE, 1991, GRCs had been expanded to four-men teams.
However, there were still 21 single-member seats. At that election,
voters elected four opposition MPs into Parliament [from] SMCs,
including the Workers’ Party’s Mr Low Thia Khiang. This was the
largest number of opposition MPs elected since the Barisan
Socialis’ walk-out in the 1960s.
Sir, in the following GE in 1997, GRCs were again expanded to
even six-men GRCs. No longer was there an attempt to explain these
mega-GRCs as securing minority representation. Instead the excuse
of economy of scale for town councils and community development
councils was used. Despite that, the Workers’ Party team in Cheng
San GRC scored 45 per cent with its team including Mr Jeyaretnam
and Mr Tang Liang Hong.
By this GE, 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 twelve, we hail this as progress.
Sir, over the years the PAP itself has admitted that the GRC
serves its party purposes. In 2006, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong
noted that having GRCs helped to recruit PAP candidates since,
quote: “Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least
the first election, many able and successful young
Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.”
Unquote.
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, quote, “should be ready to
lead his own GRC team”, unquote, in the coming 2006 elections.
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 meetings
published. The revised boundaries are released weeks or even days
before Nomination Day. The report makes no attempts to explain why
certain single seats are retained, and others are dissolved, nor
why new GRCs are created or old ones re-shaped. Voters have changed
constituencies 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 JB 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 very much want
to.
In addition, an NCMP has no physical base. Under the Town
Councils Act, the incumbent MP 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 organize 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 organizations, 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 the 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 become 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 will 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.
