Group Representation Constituencies

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as my colleague Hazel Poa said, I will be elaborating further on the history of the GRC system and how the PAP has regularly made changes to the electoral rules to entrench its political dominance.

The introduction of the GRC system was part of a package of constitutional innovations during the 1980s which also included the introduction of the Elected Presidency.

The 1980s was a politically significant era for Singapore. It began with Mr JB Jeyaretnam breaking the Parliamentary dominance of the PAP during the 1981 Anson by-election. Later, the 1984 General Election saw a 13% swing against the PAP and the election of two opposition Members – Mr JB Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam See Tong.

All these took place amidst a changing of guard in the PAP. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the other old guard Ministers retired. The 2G team led by Mr Goh Chok Tong took over.

The PAP has always denied accusations that the introduction of the GRC system and the elected presidency was to entrench its political dominance.

At the beginning, both Constitutional innovations were meant to fulfil a specific purpose. The GRC system was meant to ensure that there will always be a minimum level of minority representation in Parliament. This became increasingly important as resettlement and the creation of Housing and Development Board (HDB) new towns under the Ethnic Integration Policy meant that there were no longer any more Malay majority constituencies.

The Elected Presidency, on the other hand, was meant to safeguard our increasingly large past Reserves by creating a second key to the past Reserves that was independent of the elected Government.

I think that many Singaporeans would have no objections with these schemes if these schemes stayed true to their original purpose. However, both the GRC system and the Elected Presidency have been subject to many changes over the years. Although these changes had various justifications, it is still difficult for the public to be convinced that these frequent changes are not motivated by political considerations.

For example, when the GRC system was introduced during the 1988 GE, all GRCs had three members. This was later expanded to a maximum of four in the 1991 GE. The reason given by the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was to provide flexibility so that we could minimise major changes of boundaries to GRCs which have grown too big for the number of MPs serving them.

This reason was still plausible and acceptable. But then in the 1991 General Election, the Opposition won an unprecedented four seats in Parliament. This was followed by further tweaks to the GRC system. GRCs were expanded to a maximum of six members from the 1997 General Election onwards.

Prime Minister Goh justified this move by claiming that he wanted to devolve more authority to the local communities by setting up Community Development Councils (CDCs). Because CDCs needed economies of scale and a critical mass of residents, Prime Minister Goh said that increasing the maximum number of MPs in the GRC from four to six will give more flexibility to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) to configure a GRC which is the right size for this purpose.

Many Singaporeans, including myself, have never been convinced by this reasoning. Community Development Councils (CDCs) can be formed by forming six adjourning SMCs or two three-member GRCs. There is no need for six-member GRCs.

Instead, many Singaporeans believed that the PAP Government expanded GRC sizes to hamper the Opposition's electoral chances after a strong showing by the Opposition in the 1991 GE.

There are several ways in which GRCs can be used to maximise the PAP's advantages.

Firstly, the varying sizes of GRCs provide maximum flexibility for the EBRC to redraw boundaries in a way that can be advantageous for the ruling party. Since 1988, SMCs that have been absorbed into GRCs have had a higher average vote share for the opposition than the average SMC. In many of these SMCs, the Opposition polled above 40%, such as Braddell Heights, Bukit Batok and Changi in 1991, Joo Chiat in 2011 and Fengshan in 2015. Only SMCs and GRCs that the Opposition have won are consistently spared from changes in their electoral boundaries.

I therefore fully expect West Coast GRC and other constituencies where the PSP contested in the last election to disappear or have their boundaries heavily redrawn in the next election. If that happens, I hope Singaporeans will open their eyes and decide for themselves if these changes are for population shifts and housing developments, or for other reasons.

As a result of the GRC boundaries, many HDB towns and planning areas in Singapore are fragmented among multiple GRCs and by extension, Town Councils and CDCs. For example, Serangoon Town is divided between Marine Parade GRC which is in Southeast CDC, Aljunied GRC which is in Northeast CDC and Ang Mo Kio GRC which is in Central Singapore CDC. The EBRC has never explained the reason for drawing such peculiar boundaries.

Such an arrangement can hardly foster a sense of community among local communities, which the PAP Government has claimed is the purpose of the CDCs. It instead gives rise to suspicion amongst Singaporeans that the PAP is manipulating the GRC system for their political benefit.

Secondly, because GRCs are larger, the demographic composition can be adjusted to ensure that the vote share for the ruling party in GRCs is less likely to deviate significantly from the vote share for the ruling party at the national level. This is unlike SMCs, where a smaller number of voters creates more opportunities for divergence in election results.

Given our first-past-the-post voting system, where the winning party wins all the seats in the GRC, the GRC system magnifies the electoral advantages of the PAP. This is why there is a very high level of disproportionality in the translation of Opposition votes to Parliament seats in Singapore.

In the last election, the Opposition won 39% of the votes, but we only comprise 11% of the elected Members in Parliament. This is due in a large part to the advantages that the GRC system provides for the PAP.

Since the 2006 GE, there has been some positive changes to the GRC system. Prime Minister Lee has pledged to reduce the average size of GRCs and increase the number of SMCs. As a result, the average number of Members of Parliament in a GRC has decreased from 5.4 in 2006, to 4.65 in 2020. Now there are also no more six-Member GRCs.

However, the maximum size of GRCs in the Constitution is still six. So, these jumbo GRCs could still make a comeback in future. It is by the grace of the Prime Minister, rather than by law, that we now have smaller GRCs.

Perhaps Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong can share during today's debate whether he will make the same commitment to having smaller GRCs once he takes over as the next Prime Minister. The Prime Minister exercises great power over electoral boundaries. He gets to decide when the EBRC is formed; who is in the EBRC; and sets the terms of reference for the EBRC. Will Deputy Prime Minister Wong share his future approach towards electoral boundaries?

I have just recounted how the PAP has frequently changed the rules around GRCs over the years. It is a similar story with the Elected Presidency which has been the subject of numerous Constitutional amendments over the years, most notably in 2016.

During the Presidential Election in 2011, Dr Tan Cheng Bock lost to Dr Tony Tan by a razor-thin margin of 0.35%. Many of those who voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock hoped that he would be able to stand again during the Presidential Election in 2017.

In January 2016, Prime Minister Lee announced that it was timely to review the eligibility criteria of the Elected Presidency and convened a constitutional commission to do so. At that point in time, he stated that any legislation to give effect to the Commission's recommendation would be tabled before the end of 2016, but this did not explicitly mean that any changes would be effective from the 2017 Presidential Election.

The Commission eventually recommended that provision should be made for a Reserved Election if a particular race has not been elected for five Presidential terms. This was because the Elected Presidency had to be an integral pillar of Singapore's commitment to multiracialism.

However, the Constitutional Commission also did not make any recommendation regarding when the changes should be implemented. It was the Government that made the decision to start counting from President Wee Kim Wee, which meant that the 2017 Election would be a Reserved Election for Malay candidates only.

The Constitutional Commission also recommended that the criteria for private sector candidates should be tightened significantly – the share capital criteria raised from $100 million to $500 million. This was also implemented at the 2017 Election.

All this came after Dr Tan Cheng Bock announced his intention to contest the 2017 Presidential Election on 11 March 2016, months before the Constitutional Commission released its report.

The changes meant that Dr Tan Cheng Bock not only could not stand in 2017 but would also be permanently disqualified from becoming President because of the share capital requirement for private sector candidates.

This same criterion was also used to disqualify the two Malay candidates who had wanted to stand in the first reserved Election for the Presidency in 2017. It would not be remiss to say that all this cast a dark shadow over the historic Presidency of President Halimah Yacob, who is our first female President and the first Malay President in 46 years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by saying that from a democratic standpoint, the GRC system ought to be regarded as one of the most undesirable electoral rule in the world. It magnifies the seat share of the PAP beyond its voting strength and creates opportunities for the manipulation of electoral boundaries for partisan purposes. Over time, it breeds cynicism and disillusion in our political system as the views of the public are not properly reflected in the election results.

Over the last 40 years, the PAP has won more than two-thirds of the votes only in the 2001 and 2015 GEs. Yet, throughout this time, it has controlled a Parliamentary supermajority of 90% of the seats.

In our system, any political party commanding more than 50% will be able to form a stable government. One with more than 67% of the seats, or two-thirds majority will be able to amend the Constitution at will and thus, will be able to form a very strong government.

The overwhelming PAP's supermajority of 90% is thus not necessary for a strong government. The supermajority only makes it more difficult for the Opposition to voice out the people's concerns adequately in the Parliament. PSP supports the abolition of the GRC system to create a fairer and more representative Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I call on this House to support the Motion. For country, for people.

Sir, I thank the hon Members from the PSP for raising this Motion.

A call to abolish the GRC system by an Opposition party is not new one. In a 2014 paper, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) called for this as well. It was also in the Workers' Party's (WP) 2020 elections manifesto under the heading "Accountable Political and Governance Institutions".

The NSP's key argument against the GRC system was that it essentially gave more power to a voted-in GRC because theoretically, one vote could elect several MPs, while in an SMC, one vote goes to elect only one MP.

NSP's Secretary-General called this a lack of parity between the weight of the votes. The paper further added that in Singapore at that time, winning an election by appealing to the voters on the basis of ethnicity was highly improbable.

Let me give emphasis to this. It said that it was highly improbable, which means that the NSP acknowledged that going down this line was a gamble. It felt that the odds were good, but it was nonetheless a gamble. And it is perhaps in this regard that the people also called for the introduction of a "constituencies reserved for minority" scheme in which some SMCs would be reserved for minority candidates.

The WP's argument in its manifesto was that Singapore had matured to a point that there is no evidence now that Singaporeans vote solely along racial lines.

The PSP has made further arguments today about why the GRC advantages the ruling party and disadvantages others and may not be in the interest of Singaporeans.

To quickly touch on the origins of the GRC system – the slated original purpose in 1988 was to guarantee a minimum representation of minorities in Parliament through a structural change to the electoral system. This would eliminate the possibility, however remote, of a Parliament where all elected Members were from a single race. And I must add that a Parliament where all Members are Chinese would have been a conceivable outcome of elections. Given that even as we call ourselves a multiracial society, our population is in fact overwhelmingly Chinese and, as such, it falls to reason that there is likely to be more Chinese candidates from both the ruling party and the Opposition.

Some opposition parties have previously expressed that it was difficult for them to attract enough good minority candidates to field several GRCs at that time. So, it would also have been possible that in the absence of GRCs, the slate of smaller opposition parties may have been entirely, or overwhelmingly, Chinese.

The move to introduce GRCs in 1988 was not the first time that concern over minority representation had been raised and mitigating factors considered. The Government in the early 1980s had considered a twinning model where candidates would have to contest in a pair in some constituencies, with one being a minority. This was dropped upon objection from minority MPs.

And even at the start of Singapore's Independence, minority representation was a concern. The 1966 Constitutional Commission chaired by the then Chief Justice considered this very question. Various proposals were made on how to ensure minority representation in Parliament, including having non-elected minority Members – similar to what the PSP is now proposing – having an Upper House with Members elected to represent various ethnic, religious and linguistic groups; and having representation outrightly proportionate to the racial composition of Singapore – also similar to something that the PSP is proposing. They were all rejected as inadequate structures.

So, this question of minority representation is one we have been pondering from the start of our Independence. Various models have been considered and, ultimately, we landed on the GRC system.

The PSP Motion raises many questions that have been asked before and that have been answered before. But PSP's position is that it is now the right time to reopen the matter and to relitigate on these questions. It appears to be also the position of other Opposition parties.

There is therefore a currency to that proposal and I will come to this point on currency shortly.

But I have some questions as regards the Motion and the proposals made by PSP. And I will also venture to answer my own questions. It is of course open to the PSP and indeed, any other party to disagree or agree with my answers.

My first question is: does the PSP accept that there is no perfect electoral system?

If we were to abolish the GRC system, then we would revert to an SMC first-past-the-post system – it is called the majority-to-reality system, within a Westminster Parliamentary Model.

SMCs have been criticised on various grounds, and alternatives like a party-list system had been proposed, which is a form of proportional representation. As regards to the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, there are also a large number of criticisms. Such systems have been criticised for excluding minority parties who have won a particular share of the vote but did not manage to get past the post in any or many single-seat constituencies. It can lead to scenarios where a party can win over 40% of the vote but has little or no representation in Parliament. The FPTP system has also been found to be very difficult for minority and women candidates to do well in. They have encouraged the development of ethnic-based parties given rise to regional fiefdoms and resulted in large numbers of wasted votes.

There are many criticisms of the FPTP system. I have mentioned only some of the criticisms that have been raised by analysts and academics. And in fact, the Westminster system itself has been criticised on various grounds, but I would not go into details on this.

Likewise, for other types of systems, proportional representation, for example, is criticised for giving rise to gridlock in decision-making due to fractured legislatures. Of course, there are also advantages. Let me cover my views on what the PSP has proposed.

And the other systems, Sir, block vote systems, transferrable vote systems. There are so many of them and all of them have advantages and disadvantages. In other words, none of these systems are perfect systems and each country must decide on what is the most appropriate system for its own social, political and often, geographic context.

So, the PSP proposal is not a proposal to move to a perfect electoral system. It is a move to revert to a prior electoral system. And it is not even a proposal to correct the system but a proposal to transit to what is, in fact, another imperfect system. Even if we were to abolish the GRC system, Sir, and move and revert to what we had before, there would be criticisms of it – there would be advantages and there would be disadvantages as well. The question really is whether what the PSP is proposing is the best system in Singapore's context.

First, the PSP has proposed an NCMP for minorities. The question that arises here is whether we will be able to accept; will Singaporeans be able to accept a scenario in which many or most of our minority MPs are NCMPs? They would have no constituency experience and is it acceptable for most Singaporeans who have exposure only to a Chinese elected MP? This is a distinct possibility.

Second, as regards to proportional representation, I mentioned earlier some of the disadvantages, but all the countries that the hon Member Ms Poa referred to, are countries that have proportional representation systems that are not based on ethnicity, but they are instead based on party. One of the things that we need to think about is how this proposed system would square with the Westminster parliamentary system. In particular, how would the MPs elected be allocated to their constituencies? And, indeed, one of the criticisms of a proportional representation system is that it fails to provide a strong geographical linkage between an MP and an MP's electorate. And furthermore, a party-list system will subject all MPs, not only minority MPs, to the system, but it will provide a proviso for minorities, and this may lead to fractious legislatures.

Second, does the PSP accept that the GRC system has achieved its original primary objectives? My answer is quite clearly yes. We have good minority representation in the House. But more importantly, we have minority representation without concerns or issues of race being brought up during the elections. Let us understand what this means. It is a phenomenal feat. Race may not now be a consideration in the elections, not despite the GRC system but because of it. And the GRC system simply takes questions of race, religion and all of these other potentially divisive qualities out of the equation. I really hope that we recognise this.

In my view, it is difficult to argue that the GRC system has not met its primary objective and that is, to put it bluntly, to achieve fuss-free minority representation in Parliament, something that all the previous proposals may not have achieved.

Further to this, race is largely removed as a strategic consideration in how parties decide which candidate runs in which constituency.

If we were to abolish the GRC system, I imagine that race would invariably become one of the important considerations in where candidates run or where they are placed. I do not believe that parties would just be deploying candidates around willy-nilly and simply hope for the best. Such a party would not likely do well in the elections.

But what would happen if we abolished GRCs would be that race and religion would creep back into the party's considerations when determining their elections strategy. Furthermore, the GRC system has also worked to ensure that all parties contesting in the elections and in GRCs must themselves be multiracial. This can only be a good thing. And tellingly and surprisingly, I found that both of the PSP hon Members did not address whether the GRC system had achieved its original purpose in the first place of ensuring minority representation in Parliament.

Third, does the PSP accept that in politics, perception, suggestion and allegation can be as impactful as reality and, in fact, can be more dangerous?

Sir, in my Adjournment Motion on racial and religious harmony that I raised almost exactly two years ago, I said that in a multiracial country, the very perception of buyers in voting along racial lines is as dangerous as the reality. Suggestions and allegations play on the minds of the electorate especially now that such a large proportion of our population has access to the Internet. They may not be actionable falsehoods. They may be couched as opinions.

We further know that allegations have a way of continuing to colour impressions even after they had been disproved. These are the realities of politics.

In the various instances where a minority candidate had stood against a Chinese candidate in a SMC, the minority had won. And there are some examples that Ms Poa had raised. But let us just consider what if one of them had lost. Would there have been suggestions, allegations and the perception that he or she had lost because of race? I would venture to say that inevitably, there would be such suggestions and the allegations and the perception of racialism and race-based voting by some. And this could lead to racial unhappiness and distrust.

The current GRC system, in my view, does not even allow such perceptions to form. And I recall just a few days ago, that the hon Member Mr Leong had himself brought up how important perception is in politics. He raised this in relation to various comments he had come across online regarding the rental of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) properties. So, Mr Leong is probably keenly aware of the need to manage perceptions in politics.

My fourth question is: does the PSP accept that Singapore's racial and religious harmony is hard fought and precious but also fragile? Does the PSP accept that even if we currently have some form of ethnic and religious modus vivendi, that this may change in the future?

I mentioned earlier that I would deal with the point on currency. If we look at the positions taken by all the political parties that I mentioned, they underscore their call for abolishing the GRC system on the fact that at this current point, Singaporeans are unlikely to vote based on race and that there is no evidence showing the same. But inherent in the fact that they qualify that this is the current situation and hence, we should consider abolishing GRCs now, is an admission that it may not have been the same in the past, that things had changed over time. And this is the fundamental flaw in their argument.

If things can change for the better, they can also change for the worst. And history, Sir, is rife with examples of people of different ethnicities, living next to each other peacefully for centuries and then, something happens, it is a small spark, a disagreement. A misunderstanding, and they descend into conflict. Countries have descended into civil war in this way.

In Singapore, we have seen flashpoints of racial unease and tension arise from time to time. This was the trigger for my Adjournment Motion on racial and religious harmony. Even something that, for some, was simple and innocuous, like the use of a cut-out standee, was seen by others as evidence of insensitivity towards ethnic minorities or discrimination and lack of understanding. A Government body was even accused of racism.

There are allegations of Chinese privilege in Singapore. There are uncles scolding interracial couples in the street.

These, Sir, are arguably small incidents, non-political matters that had, nonetheless, evoked significant feeling in minority communities as well as in the majority Chinese community.

Fifth, given all of the above, does the PSP therefore accept that abolishing the GRC system is an experiment? It is a gamble for which if we lose, we stand to jeopardise the very unity of our country. Further to the fact that all the calls for abolition of premise on current situation, they are also premised on likelihood. There is no certainty. The calls are carefully qualified. NSP uses the phrase "highly improbable"; WP's proposal is based on there being no evidence that voters vote solely on the basis of race, and "solely", of course, is in absolute term. The underlying admission is that it could be one of the considerations but not the sole consideration. And PSP has proposed alternatives that admit that there is yet a concern because they are suggesting something else that will help to ameliorate the concern over minority representation.

I imagine this Motion is timed to coincide with the Presidential Elections where we may see an ethnic minority candidate pitted against one or more Chinese candidates, based just on the fact that several nomination forms were collected. And this was referred to by Ms Poa.

Mr Leong also dedicated a large proportion of his speech to the elected Presidency despite this Motion being about GRCs. But some have been saying that if Senior Minister Tharman, the minority candidate, wins, then this shows that the GRC system has become irrelevant because he had won against one or more Chinese candidates. I do not think this is a fair or logical argument. Senior Minister Tharman can only be described as a rather exceptional creature. And Mr Murali was also mentioned but he had very considerable grassroots experience in Bukit Batok before he ran. So, these are exceptions and we should not use exceptions to make rules.

While we can aspire towards being blind to race, we should not be blind to the reality of ethnic feeling, especially those of minorities. The incidents I previously mentioned tested our unity and we must not dismiss the fact that racial politics is the fastest and most furious means to tear a society apart. It develops quickly, it spreads fast. We may be idealistically thinking that we are beyond all these things now. But we know that our racial unity is fragile. I do not think anybody would argue against this. And we know that we must work hard to keep it together.

In the event that it deteriorates for whatever reason – and we cannot discount this possibility – we must ensure that our structures of Government and elections are able to withstand changing circumstances. The question is how should our institutions be built? Fluffy, feel-good institutions that hope for the best of times or robust, resilient institutions that can withstand the worst?

My final question is: does the PSP accept that the advantages of the GRC system can be ameliorated to a satisfactory extent by reducing the sizes of GRCs and increasing the number of SMCs, while at the same time, preserving its advantages? In particular, a fuss-free minority representation in Parliament.

This brings me full circle to my first point that there is no perfect electoral system. The natural question is whether we can work with what we have to tweak it such that the disadvantages are minimised while maintaining the good in the system.

We should not throw away the baby with the bathwater. The Government has already committed to reducing the sizes of GRCs and introducing more SMCs. And as Mr Leong mentioned, this has already happened. Is this sufficient mitigation to the concerns that the PSP has raised about MPs sitting on the coat-tails of Ministers, voters voting on the "fear to lose" basis? And these may be characterised more as political concerns, not social concerns of which the GRC system was built.

Sir, to conclude, in a reply to then NMP Viswa Sadasivan, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in one of his last major speeches in Parliament, schooled this House in what can only be described as racial realpolitik. Mr Lee was replying to a Motion by the NMP that included a call to move beyond race and to treat everyone as equal.

This call to abolish the GRC system is premised on these very same ideas that Singaporeans have moved beyond race; that in voting, we will consider every candidate only on the relevant merits and be more or less blind to race. It also expects that in a situation where a minority candidate loses, as inevitably one eventually will, there will be little or no perception that race did not contribute to that loss.

In response to that the NMP's call that all are equal and should be treated equally, Mr Lee said, and I quote, "It is not reality, it is not practical, it will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle." He went on to say, "The way that Singapore has made progress is by a realistic step-by-step forward approach." He ended his speech by saying, "Perhaps, I should bring this House back to earth and remind everybody what is our starting point, what is our base and if we do not recognise where we started from and that these are our foundations, we will fail."

So, let us be realistic and make decisions not on aspiration or idealism. This Motion invites this House to embark on an experiment; a perpetual experiment if we abolish the GRC system, which we will have to head into every future election with and with every future candidate and every future contesting party must contend with. What if racial relations deteriorate over time? What if we have a troublemaker intent on using race to gain political advantage within the electoral system?

Sir, if this experiment fails, if we lose this gamble, it is the PSP that loses. It is Singapore that loses and it is our fellow Singaporeans who will lose. We should not make this gamble. And it is in this regard that I will not support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful, for the opportunity to express my thoughts on the Motion presented by NCMPs Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai regarding GRCs.

GRCs are unique to Singapore's electoral landscape and require political parties to field candidates from different races in the GRC team to ensure that minority representation in Parliament is upheld. This system helps to promote inter-ethnic understanding and cooperation, enabling minority candidates to be elected to Parliament and ensuring that their voices are heard at the national level. The GRC plays an important role in maintaining Singapore's social fabric and promoting racial harmony, which is critical in a diverse nation like Singapore. And this is why I cannot support the Motion.

However, I would like to raise three points on GRCs. First, I would like to propose reducing the maximum number of individuals allowed in a GRC, reducing the area or boundaries covered by a GRC, and increasing the number of SMCs. This would increase the competition and diversity in elections. By reducing the size of GRCs, it is easier for Opposition parties to field credible candidates to contest every seat and could lead to greater voter choice and accountability for elected officials. Additionally, reducing the size of GRCs could help to promote greater representation of minority groups and communities in Parliament.

Second, I would like to propose that more seats be made available in Parliament through SMCs. Singapore's population is increasing and the needs of Singaporeans have also increased. I would encourage the Government to continue to increase the number of Parliamentarians in Parliament to increase the diversity in the discussions here today.

Thirdly, another area where GRCs can be improved is in terms of diversity. The Elections Department of Singapore requires a minimum of one MP representing a minority racial community in a GRC. While GRCs aim to achieve minority representation in Parliament, there should also be diversity in terms of gender representation as well. Mandating having at least one female representative in the GRC would increase the number of female Parliamentarians, adding to the diverse discussions and debates here.

Ultimately, Singapore is a democratic society, and the power rests with the voters, who should decide who represents them in Parliament. All politicians should earn their votes by convincing voters that they are the best candidates to represent Singaporeans' interests and values. This involves engaging with voters, listening to their concerns and communicating a clear vision for the future. This goes for every Member here – PAP, WP, PSP or not.

At this juncture, I would like to address a view shared by hon Member Hazel Poa that GRCs have the potential to enable more popular MPs to carry less popular ones into Parliament, or coat-tailing. Whether this view has merit or not, reducing the number of representatives in a GRC could increase the power of the electorate and enable Singaporeans to hold their elected representatives accountable. It is important for Parliamentarians to be accountable to their constituents and to work hard to earn their trust and support. This means being transparent about their actions and decisions, seeking feedback from voters, and working collaboratively with their stakeholders to achieve common goals.

Like what my fellow NMP Raj Joshua Thomas has mentioned, the PSP must understand that there is no perfect system and we should be striving for the best system for Singapore and Singaporeans today.

Finally, any decision on abolishing GRCs needs to be carefully considered to ensure that it promotes diversity and inclusivity without reducing representation for minority communities. It is crucial to consider the potential impacts of abolishing GRCs before making any changes to the electoral system. Any changes made should promote greater diversity and inclusivity in political representation and not inadvertently lead to a reduction in representation for minorities.

The LED screens show a blown-up photo of a flyer used in my campaign in GE 2020 that was defaced. I think hon Members looking at this slide will straightway appreciate the racial undertones quite quickly. The graffiti was an attempt to make me even more Indian, as if my name and skin colour were too understated.

I got this photo from a resident who was upset about the matter. She pointed out to me that there was a Chinese character written over my chest which was partially hidden through colouring over the character. The character is "die". When I had occasion to review the photo whilst drafting this speech, I realised the same character was written on both hands, too.

How Indian must I be to be oblivious to a Chinese calling for my death? And yet, perhaps fortunately, how Singaporean can I be to get the job done and meet my key performance indicators (KPIs)?

When I saw the attempts to politicise the elections on racial lines, I made a decision not to be distracted. I focused on what I believed were the priorities of my constituents.

Hon Members would recall that at the Opening of this Session of Parliament following GE 2020, I said that all of us in politics must grow the skin of a rhino and the heart of a lion. You now know what precipitated my remarks.

When I stood for elections in Aljunied GRC in 2015, I certainly did not see similar attempts at racial politicisation. I personally think that the reason for this is attributable to the fact that I stood as part of a team in a GRC. It would be difficult for any person to exploit matters along racial lines during elections when the political parties in the contest fielded minority candidates in their respective teams. In a GRC fight, we are in it together. The GRC is a compound, not a mixture that can pried away, one element from another.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the basis of my experience having fought in three elections at a GRC and SMC, I would respectfully suggest that the GRC system continues to be important to ensure that we will be able to get appropriate representation in this House from minority races.

The fact that I won two elections in an SMC does not provide grounds to do away with the GRC system. I pointed out that I was not a newbie. However, even then, I faced coordinated attempts to politicise the campaign along racial lines, which were rebuffed by Bukit Batok voters. Thankfully, I had thick skin and I was able to focus on my campaign.

About a week ago, I shared with my elder daughter, a teenager, that I will be speaking on race issues in connection with this Motion. In response, she told me that during the 2020 hustings – she would have been in primary school then – she came across an outright racist remark about me on Twitter.

She was upset about the matter. She, however, decided not to tell me about it because she felt that I was already going through a tough election. She was protecting me at a time when actually it is the father's duty to protect the child.

I looked at her carefully when she told me this. She had a habit of biting her lips when she was upset. Thankfully, she did not. She is now at peace, although she had to grow up much faster as a result.

I ask hon Members from the majority race in this House. Imagine that you are from a minority race. Would you want to put your own son or daughter through an election in a situation where there is a good probability that your child may be excoriated simply on account of his or her race?

If the GRC system is abolished, we will have to contend with the scenario that good people from minority races, knowing that there is a danger of elections being politicised along racial lines, may just decide this is too much trouble and not run for elections. They will not be prepared to be made fun of along racial lines.

Is that what we want? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said that the Singaporean approach to difficult issues is to “deal with the facts as they are” and not as we wish them to be. We have made progress from the days of race riots, but we need to be honest and realistic about race relations always.

I can speak simple Mandarin, I can have political experience, I can rise above racial needling, but after all this, let us be honest, I am still “too Indian” for some voters.

There may be a time when race may not matter. But that is not now. Until that day, we will still need the GRC. Because in a GRC, you are not going to go up against any particular race, but a coalition of us, bound together by the collective interests of the GRC and of Singapore. Each of us is constitutive of this group, this compound that forms a protective coating against racial attacks, from wherever they come, and against any of us from any race. Only then, we can hope to succeed, regardless of race, language or religion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened carefully to all the speeches made, particularly the ones made by Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa to move this Motion. But perhaps, I should just clarify before I stray out of order, that this Motion calls for the abolition of the GRC, and not about the Elected Presidency. Because I appreciate Ms Hazel Poa's various ideas and suggestions, but I was a bit confused by Mr Leong's speech that spent the greater bulk of his comment on the Elected Presidency. So, if I stick narrowly to the Motion, I think I should confine my comments to the debate on the GRC today.

I would also like to thank Mr Murali for sharing his very personal experiences and reflections. I would like to thank Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, Mr Mark Chay and Ms Janet Ang for their very incisive, heartfelt and non-partisan views.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Motion put forth today, calling for GRCs to be abolished, comes down to the fundamental philosophy and principles that underpin why this House had agreed to have the GRC system in the first place. The question is: do we, as a people and as a system, believe in ensuring that the Parliament, our highest legislative body of the land, is representative of a multiracial Singapore? Or, as Mr Raj Joshua Thomas said, are we willing to take the risk of rule by majority without safeguards for our minority communities, without safeguards against racial politics that can easily tear apart the fabric of our nation?

These are the fundamental issues in discussing this Motion and it forms the basis of why we have the GRCs. So, I ask all Members of this House to carefully consider this when we vote on the Motion later.

Members have also given their views on the design of the GRC system, such as the sizes and number of GRCs that we should have. I will address these issues in my speech. But let me first address the Motion put before us, because this is not a Motion for reforming GRCs. This is a Motion that calls for the GRC system to be abolished altogether. It is the principle of the GRC system that is at stake here today.

Finally, I shall conclude by making some observations on how we learn from the experiences of other countries when we design, operate and evolve our own systems, but how we should not copy blindly. We will always seek to develop models, and we must always seek to develop models that best meet our needs and circumstances.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me start with the two fundamental considerations for our predecessors when they introduced the GRC system – first, to ensure that this House reflects the multiracial make-up of our people; and second, that our politics do not become racially charged. Both are important.

When Independence was thrust upon us, we could easily have chosen to organise ourselves based on majoritarian rule. But we did not. Instead, since Independence, we have always been sensitive to the needs of our minorities, especially for the majority to exercise greater responsibility to ensure that the rights and interests of our minorities are not neglected.

In our Constitution, we recognise and safeguard the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore. We also clearly state, “It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore”.

We prohibited discrimination against citizens on the grounds of race. We instituted the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, or PCMR in short, to ensure that new laws passed by Parliament do not prejudice any racial or religious community. We put in place guardrails because we value multiracialism.

The GRC system is an extension of this philosophy – to minimise the risk that this House no longer represents our multiracial demography and ride roughshod over the interests of our minority communities. Our GRC system guarantees that Parliament will always be multiracial and representative of the make-up of our society.

Next, because the GRC system requires constituencies to be contested by multiracial teams of candidates, political parties and their candidates have to take a moderate, multiracial approach when campaigning instead of a communal or racially extreme approach. This means we minimise the risk that any party can try to win votes by playing the race card. Ms Poa’s alternative suggestions of minority NCMP and proportional representation do not address this point and I will come back to explain this in a while.

This issue matters, especially in hotly contested seats where an appeal to race could shape the outcome of a contest. This is very real, as the hon Member for Bukit Batok had just shared.

This matters and will continue to matter, even if a GRC loses its minority Member, through illness or resignation, during the Parliamentary term. Because any party that wants to be re-elected will know the importance of winning the support of all races. This is an important safeguard to prevent our politics from becoming racial.

So, contrary to what was claimed by Ms Poa, the GRC system does not divide us by race. In fact, it is designed to disincentivise the appeal of race in politics to minimise the chances and leverage that people can use race in an electoral contest.

Those are the core issues and the fundamental issues. Let me now deal with the second-order executional issues.

First is the claim that GRCs unfairly benefit the incumbent by tapping on the “star power” in each team. Otherwise, in Ms Poa's words, it is known as the “coat-tail” argument. I do not think that “star power” is the preserve of the incumbent. Various speakers before me have shared that. One can argue that the “star power” of Mr Low Thia Khiang would have contributed much to the Workers’ Party’s electoral success in Aljunied in 2011. Likewise, maybe you would also agree with me that few would deny that the “star power” of Dr Tan Cheng Bock has contributed much to PSP's showing in West Coast in 2020, leading to both Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa being the two NCMPs in our House today.

Conversely, the “star power” can cut the other way. Should a member of the team, Minister or otherwise, become a liability, he or she can also affect the electoral performance of the entire team to the team’s detriment.

Second is the size of the GRC. Various Members have suggested for the GRC size to be smaller or having more SMCs. As Members have pointed out, the average size of the GRC has come down and the number of SMCs has gone up in the last two elections. There was no six-member GRC in GE2020.

And I want everyone to know that the Government understands the sentiments of our people, and I am sure the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) here can appreciate the aspirations of our people. Ultimately, the EBRC will take into consideration various factors, including what was mentioned today, to decide on the boundaries. It is not for the Government of the day to decide, as suggested by Mr Leong. The Government of the day has made clear our position. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has made clear our position. And it is the collective decision of the Government of the day, not any particular individual and not whether is it Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong or otherwise.

Next, I want to touch on this other point, which is related to the size and shape of the electoral division. Mr Leong suggested that every of our divisions is rather homogenous in its characteristics. Indeed, so. The question is: are we better served if our divisions are not microcosms of the country but, instead, across our island, we have divisions that have very unique and skewed characteristics, and maybe even along racial lines?

If so, what kind of outcomes do we expect from such electoral contests? The reason and the advantage of all divisions being microcosms – plus or minus a bit – of the national characteristics allows everyone to focus our selection of the candidates to represent them based on our collective national interest, and not on sectoral characteristics or interests. Consider this carefully. In other countries, they have gone exactly that way, where electoral contests are fought on narrow sectoral interests or characteristics.

However, perhaps I have strayed. We can debate and evolve these features. It does not detract from the underlying fundamental reasons of having the GRC system to ensure that our Parliament remains multiracial and our politics non-racial.

Third is on the need to call a by-election to fill a position vacated by a minority or any other Member. This has been debated and clarified in this House and I will not repeat all the arguments.

The Courts have settled the law on this. Members may wish to refer to the 2017 High Court decision to dismiss the application filed by Dr Wong Souk Yee for a by-election to be held in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC after Mdm Halimah Yacob resigned her seat as Member of Parliament to stand for the Presidential Election. Dr Wong subsequently filed an appeal over the ruling. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no requirement for a by-election to be called in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC after Mdm Halimah Yacob resigned her seat as Member of Parliament to stand for the Presidential Election.

In a GRC contest, the voters vote for the team and it is the GRC team that represents the GRC and all its constituents in Parliament. Not requiring a by-election to fill the position vacated by a minority or any other Member is to prevent any single team member holding the rest to ransom by threatening to step down, as Members have also pointed out.

This also does not detract from the fact that no one can hope to gain electoral advantage by playing on race, as the team would still be required to be multiracial in their approach and advocacy of Singaporeans' interests to appeal to all races in the next election.

Fourth, the claim that the GRC system has stunted the growth of the Opposition. As Mr Leong pointed out, before the introduction of the GRC system, we had only two Opposition Members in 1984. After the 2020 GE, we now have 10 Opposition Members elected to this House as well as two NCMPs.

I think it would be fair to say that the number of Opposition Members in this House ultimately depends more on the quality of the candidates, and whether they are able to secure the support of the Singaporeans to be elected to Parliament, than just whether they are competing in a SMC or GRC.

If PSP truly believes that the GRC system disadvantages you, then I find it odd that you sent 19 of your 24 candidates to contest in four GRCs in the most recent GE, instead of contesting in all the SMCs possible. Unless the constraint was due to the inability to attract sufficient quality minority candidates. If so, then this is precisely what the GRC system seeks to do – prevent single-race party campaigning along racial lines.

Fifth, why not have other forms of proportional representation system to ensure minority representation in this House, as suggested by Ms Poa? This issue has been debated extensively in this House, and I will, again, not repeat all the arguments. Members may wish to refer to the Hansard, in particular the speech by the Prime Minister on 27 January 2016, during the debate on the President's Address.

In essence, a proportional representation system will result in parties based on race and religion, or a special interest. Some parties will be incentivised to build their base around a particular interest in order to win seats, rather than to appeal to a broad majority of voters.

Ms Poa also suggested having an NCMP scheme for minorities, so that minority candidates who lost the contest in SMCs but have the highest percentage of votes can be appointed as NCMPs. I thought deeply about this suggestion. But unfortunately, I do not think it will achieve our objectives of ensuring Parliament is multiracial and minimising the chances of candidates and parties playing the race card. Let me explain.

First, if we only have SMCs, there is no guarantee that there will even be enough minority candidates among the losing candidates. If we only have SMCs, there is no guarantee that we will even have enough minority candidates among the losing candidates.

Second, more importantly, the NCMP system comes into play when the ruling party has a large majority in Parliament. By Ms Hazel's suggestion, it will come into play when the ruling party has a large majority without minority Members, or with very few minority Members. Would you not agree with me? If that is the case, Ms Poa's proposed system will then bring in the unsuccessful minority candidates who performed the best. And what will be the result? We would then be likely to have, as Mr Raj Joshua Thomas have pointed out, a predominantly Chinese party in power, with minority Members or NCMPs in the Opposition. Parliament would then be divided along racial lines. Our political divide will be along racial lines. And this, if I may suggest, will be most dangerous for Singapore.

Various Opposition Members have also previously criticised the NCMP scheme as being a second-class MP scheme. If this is true, can we imagine a situation where the minorities are all or largely in the NCMPs or party list as a group, while the rest or a vast majority of the elected MPs being the racial majority? Is this a better outcome for us in this House? Is this a better outcome for Singapore?

So, I have thought deeply about your suggestions, but unfortunately, I do not think it will solve our problems. If not, it will complicate things even more.

At the beginning of my speech, I highlighted the twin objectives of the GRC system, and they bear reminding – one, to ensure that our Parliament will always be representative of the racial make-up of our society; and two, to ensure that our politics do not become racially charged. These two objectives are equally important and Ms Poa's suggestions will unfortunately not ensure that our politics do not become racially charged.

Let me move on to another important set of issues. PSP made the argument that we should move beyond race. And Workers' Party (WP) says that "we are confident that Singaporeans do not vote solely on race". We agree. I am sure Singaporeans do not vote solely on the basis of race, but that is not the question before us.

The question before us is: "should race be a critical factor in their decision, even if it is not the only factor?" And to PSP's and some other Opposition suggestions that we should move beyond race, we all agree with this aspiration. I am sure I have the support of every Member of this House to support this, that we all aspire to move beyond race. Indeed, I will be the first to aspire to the day where we have a Singaporean tribe, regardless of race, language and religion, that we have all gone beyond race.

We recite it in our pledge every day – "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion". We recite it every day. One united people, regardless of race, language or religion. But having an aspiration is not the same as it being a reality today. Members may wish to revisit the exchange recorded in the Hansard between the late-Mr Lee Kuan Yew and then-NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan on this issue on 19 August 2009, as referenced by Mr Raj Joshua Thomas in his speech. This was the speech where many of us learned the phrase "highfalutin".

More recently in 2021, a survey conducted by CNA and Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) found that there is still in-group preference with respondents preferring those who are racially similar to themselves for many roles. And I will personally be very careful and not ignore the realities that we are still confronting today.

Many Members have shared your own personal stories. Are Singaporeans racists? No. Even if there are a few bad hats, they do not represent us as a people. Are Singaporeans beyond race? I think we have gotten nearer today than yesterday and I am confident we will be even nearer tomorrow. But are we there yet? So let us, and we will, endeavour and commit to making progress continuously. Are all race issues beyond us? I think we all know the answers in our hearts.

I do not take this lightly because I have to deal with them personally, sometimes in life and death situations. Let me share my own personal experiences.