Debated in Parliament on 29 Jan 2016.
Debate resumed.
Mdm Speaker, I think I have said most of the things and answered some of the questions and doubts raised.
Madam, the Workers' Party remains, in principle, opposed to the NCMP scheme. I have explained earlier, we are a responsible and rational party; we work within the system. It is the same: we oppose GRC, but we contested in GRCs. There is no contradiction. Make no mistake about that. And that is the spirit of the Workers' Party in wanting to work the system by respecting the law.
Madam, essentially, Parliament is representative of the people. MPs secure a mandate from the people to make decisions on their behalf in Parliament, thus, representation is the foundation of Parliament. Any politician who aspires to enter Parliament must seek and obtain the mandate from the people to represent them so as to seek and effect positive change for the people, not just talk.
You can air your views, you can debate here, but is there change? Is there a new direction set? I think that is what matters most. That is what Parliament is for. We have to ask: what are we here for? What is Parliament for?
Therefore, the NCMP scheme is a distraction from the fundamental meaning of Parliament. The NCMP scheme has the potential to anaesthetise Opposition politicians from the consciousness that political conviction is what brings him or her into politics. Opposition politicians may delude themselves that they are checking the Government when they are, in fact, merely participating in the discussion forum with no real power to effect change.
The NCMP scheme can also inadvertently attract candidates with a different motive and intent to participate in the Elections basically to seek personal fame and glory. If such a political culture becomes the predominant phenomenon, we will have bad politics.
What is more worrying is, should the Ruling party fail one day, what we have left to form an alternative government may be such politicians who have gained exposure and fame through the NCMP route.
Madam, on the other hand, we also recognise that Parliament is a forum to discuss issues affecting the lives of Singaporeans and the future of our nation. We recognise that having one more NCMP will contribute to the debate and possibly, better policy outcomes. Hence, it is also meaningful for well-intended individuals who aspire to represent the will of the people to be NCMPs who contribute to the process. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Chan Chun Sing, you have a clarification?
Mdm Speaker, I am glad that Mr Low Thia Khiang has made a distinction between the party list and the NCMP scheme. Indeed, I fully agree with Mr Low that the NCMP scheme is not a party list scheme.
Second, I would like to clarify with Mr Low. He has mentioned many things that an NCMP cannot do. But why not think about the many things an NCMP can do for this House and for this country?
Third, the People's Association is a Statutory Board under the Government. It executes the policy and directions for the Government.
Fourth, Mr Leon Perera, you suggested you put yourself at great risk taking up this scheme when you also seem to suggest that this NCMP scheme will endanger the very future of Singapore. Why do you want to be a party to this?
And finally, Mr Low, you said you have raised many dangers. Indeed, we agree with you there are many changes to the NCMP scheme including people coming in for the wrong reasons, people deluding themselves to showcase. If these are clear, present dangers, why do you allow your party Members to take up this scheme? It must be because on balance, you have found this scheme to be useful perhaps not just to yourself but hopefully to the wider Singapore as you have suggested; that they can contribute something even if they are not taking care of a constituency.
Mr Low, you are responding to the clarification?
I am clarifying.
Yes, please.
Yes, we do think there is something to contribute and that is why we allowed individual qualified members to decide whether they want to be NCMP. But the NCMP scheme itself is not a scheme which we will support as what we explained many times, that the scheme itself is not going to serve us well. I have just explained earlier on why. I am not convinced that this is going to be a scheme that will be able to allow genuine, serious Opposition parties to develop.
The debate on the Motion has concluded. I will now put the necessary questions on the Motion for Members' vote. I will first put the question on the amendment moved by Minister Chan Chun Sing.
Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added", put and agreed to.
Mdm Speaker —
I have already put the question.
We would like our dissent recorded, Madam.
Can I have a show of hands on who wants to have their dissent recorded?
[Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan raised their hands.]
Madam, we would like the dissent to be recorded that we are objecting to paragraph (c) of the amended Motion.
Okay, it will be so recorded. As the amendment has been agreed to, the necessary consequential amendment to the Motion will be made. I will now put the Motion, as amended, for Members' vote.
Original Motion, as amended, put.
Madam, we ask for our dissent to be recorded.
I just want to get this straight. You object to the amended Motion?
We object to the amended Motion.
You object to the entire amended Motion?
Paragraph (c) of the amended Motion, as what I had stated.
Mr Low, I have to explain that the voting is only "yes", or "no", or "abstain" on the entire Motion. So, it has to be recorded as either you support or you do not. But your expressions of disapproval of paragraph (c), that can be recorded. But you have to be clear whether you support the Motion, or you do not, or you abstain.
Mdm Speaker, can you repeat that?
Okay, let me repeat very clearly. We are at the point where we are voting on the Motion as amended. When you vote on the motion as amended, there are only three types of votes that you can cast, either in favour, against, or you abstain. So, those are the only votes that will be recorded in terms of how you express it as your votes.
Your opposition or disagreement with paragraph (c) is already recorded earlier on, when we voted on the amendment. So, you have to now, make it clear whether you are supporting or you are against or you are abstaining against the Motion as amended.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Since our objection on paragraph (c) has been recorded, we will abstain from voting, instead of objecting.
Can I have a show of hands as to who is abstaining, for us to record?
[Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan raised their hands.]
Okay.
Original Motion, as amended, again put, and agreed to.
I will take note of the abstentions on this side of the House [indicating the Opposition bench.]
Resolved,
"That this Parliament, pursuant to section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act –
(a) declares that the seat of Ms Lee Li Lian, who was elected a non-constituency Member of Parliament under section 52 of the Act, has become vacant by reason of her having failed to take and subscribe before Parliament the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first and second Sittings of the first session of the present Parliament; and
(b) resolves that the seat be filled in accordance with sections 52(2) and 52(3B)(a) of the Act;
(c) but regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers' Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing Opposition candidates, has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share, contrary to the expressed will of the voters, and that the Workers' Party supports this political manoeuvre to take full advantage of the NCMP seat, even as its Secretary General criticises NCMPs as just 'duckweed on the water of the pond.' "
PAPERCUTS