Group Representation Constituencies

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you to Minister Chan for his speech, laying out the reasons why the People's Action Party (PAP) will not be supporting the Motion.

The Workers' Party (WP) has restated its position most recently in 2008 when Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann put forward a Motion on the Parliamentary Elections Act. So, I did not want to speak because the main subject matter would really cover what Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim had already covered. Over the course of the Motion, we heard the restatement of the party's GE 2020 manifesto position, which we stand by.

But what I welcome from what the Minister said is that the GRC system is imperfect. In all the speeches from the PAP Members of Parliament and the Nominated Members of Parliament, I did not hear a defence to the argument that the GRC system is ridden on for gerrymandering purposes.

There was no convincing argument to me why Fengshan comes out when it is a tight SMC, Joo Chiat is included into a GRC when it is a tight SMC in previous elections. This is another concern, another fundamental core concern that the opposition, specifically, the WP has about the GRC system.

We understand the point. I do not think anybody in this House disagrees about the importance of multiracialism. I take the points that Minister Chan made, and I think he made them respectfully; and respectfully, I agree with the fundamental issues with regard to a multiracial society.

But when the GRC system becomes a political football, as it has been and, as Mr Low Thia Khiang also pointed out in 1996 when the size of GRCs increased to six, he put up a table in this House showing how the tight SMCs inevitably or invariably become GRCs, making it more difficult for the Opposition.

So, I do not think the PAP can walk away from any topic on the GRC by saying multiracialism is important for Singapore. We all agree with that. But what of the matter when the rubber meets the road, when we look at how the boundaries are redrawn – the GRC system is used for that purpose as well. That is the conclusion I draw, respectfully.

So, when alternatives are raised, I think we have heard of – they were only briefly covered – mixed proportional representation and so on. Going by what has happened in 2017, when we introduced the reserved Presidency, I think it shows, indeed, the GRC is not a perfect system and there are other alternatives that can be considered.

How would – not just Minister Chan, but even the Nominated Members of Parliament who spoke – he defend the GRC system from the gerrymandering? This is not an imaginary issue. It is a real issue that has happened repeatedly. And that is a hallmark of the way the PAP has employed the GRC system. And that leads to cynicism and the argument, which I believe some would make every now and then about the problems of the GRC system, notwithstanding the very well-meaning and principled argument about the importance of multiracialism. So, that is my first point.

My second point deals with the introduction and the reasons behind why the GRC system was introduced. This was a quote that came after the 1984 GE and the reason why the GRC system came to bear was, I quote, "a continuation in the trend of younger voters preferring candidates who are better qualified and suited to serve their own needs because of their education, ability, culture and languages, including dialects. The older voters voted for the party rather than the candidate out of experience and habit. They accepted the need for a multiracial Parliament. But the younger voters have not lived through the same experiences."

At the end of GE 2020, Minister Shanmugam came out to say, and I quote him: "I think the older generation of Singaporeans take one approach on how issues of race and religion are discussed and they have a framework within the law, but it is also clear that the younger generation takes a different approach, and I think we need to find a way in which those aspirations and viewpoints can be dealt with because the younger generation of Singaporeans are going to be in charge of Singapore and their views on these things ought to be discussed, needs a substantial degree of attention too."

I would suggest that the conversation also has moved and it has moved toward greater race neutrality. And I say this with reference to the point the Minister raised about the CNA-IPS survey. I have seen those survey results. Yes, nobody is making the argument that it is perfect, that racial incidents will not happen from time to time. I think they will. But that does not represent who Singaporeans are. I am sure the Minister would have also seen the IPS survey in conjunction with onepeople.sg, on the indicators of racial and religious harmony, comparing survey results from 2018 and 2013.

Let me just pull out some very short quotations from this survey. It is not a perfect survey set, for sure, but this is what it says: "Analysing the results by respondents' age, millennials were found to be more welcoming of racial diversity." This is pulled out from page 52 from this IPS report. Conclusion of the report: "In general, our results show that Singapore is faring well when it comes to inter-racial and inter-religious relations. The majority of respondents embraced religious diversity and adopt colour blindness in the case of social interaction and employment. In addition, most, including racial minorities, perceive little to no discrimination and social exclusion in public spaces in Singapore, which is an important sign for racial and religious harmony. There are also high levels of inter-racial and religious trust in Singapore alongside little perception of inter-racial and religious tension. Most respondents also indicate interest and willingness to interact with and get to know other cultures. These findings demonstrate a strong foothold of multicultural values in Singapore, with most Singaporeans internalising narratives of multiracialism and racial harmony."

I do believe the GRC system had some part to play in this. I will concede that point because it forces Opposition parties to field a multiracial slate for the reasons the Minister mentioned. You are already going to be at the starting line without votes if you do not field a multiracial slate. But the reason why I pulled out these quotes was to put into perspective with respect Member Murali's experiences and some of the issues that the Minister raised to just provide a balance to some of the arguments on race and religion issues. But fundamentally, there are systems out there which can accommodate, in my view, a racially balanced Parliament and, more fundamentally, with regard to the first issue, we need to understand where does the Minister stand on how the GRC system has been employed in the past.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I have two clarifications for Minister Chan. First of all, can we agree, Minister Chan, that the PSP position ought not to be distorted? We come to this House for this Motion having the full understanding and support that we need adequate minority representation in Parliament. That is the reason why in GE2020, we fielded 33% of our candidates from the minority group. So, our Motion today is about, yes, we agree with the importance of maintaining or even bettering, or even having a race-blind society in Singapore, that minority representation must be maintained.

But, at the same time, we think that you say that the GRC system had achieved its objective. Afterwards, my colleague, Hazel Poa, will have some insights on that. But first of all, even if I accept that GRC may have achieved part of the objective, there can be better systems for us to consider from this point.

So, what we are proposing today is that we have proposed two systems. We always take the attitude that there should be further discussion. PSP has no monopoly over all the ideas. But we are quite confident that either the NCMP scheme or the modified proportional representation scheme will be a better alternative than the GRC system. So, maybe let us focus our debate on that and then we vote on that basis. If alternative systems are better, then there is a justification for the abolition of the GRC. First question: does the Minister agree on that? PSP is not coming here to say, no, we ignore the minority representation and all that.

The second point is that while all the Minister's explanations had concentrated on minority representation, but I belong to the Merdeka Generation, and the Merdeka Generation is one that has grown up with Lee Kuan Yew. Even when we were a student, in and out of classrooms, we were reading about Lee Kuan Yew. So, when all these constitutional amendments come about, I ask Minister Chan, does he remember what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1984? Incidentally, I just got a message that the Government has also circulated this Lee Kuan Yew speech of 1984. So, what is the 1984 speech and what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time? Can you enlighten me on that? And thereafter, I will follow up, if Deputy Speaker allows me one more question.

Yes, thank you, Deputy Speaker. What I mean is that the introduction of a GRC scheme is not just due to the minority representation. There is another piece of thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time. So, I am asking Minister Chan, does he know about that piece of thinking, before he says everything about the GRC system being about minority representation? The perception or the understanding of many Singaporeans is that they think that the GRC system was not introduced just because of the minority representation. That is part of the reason.

So, I am asking does the Minister know what was the other reason or what was the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time that could have led to his thinking of introducing the GRC system.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would indulge me. Maybe I will take the second question. If Mr Leong believes that he knows the innermost thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time that is not recorded in the Hansard, maybe he should enlighten us because I certainly do not profess to know the inner thoughts of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1984 that have not been recorded in the Hansard. I think we can all read, search and find what is recorded in the Hansard and that is the basis of our discussion. But if Mr Leong is suggesting that he knows something about Mr Lee's innermost thoughts that are not recorded in Hansard or publicly, then I must humbly admit that I do not have access to the information.

I come back to Mr Leong's first point. So, can I summarise our position as follows: Mr Leong and the PSP agree that we should have a multi-racial Parliament. Mr Leong and the PSP agree that we should take racial politics out of our electoral contest.

The first point, I think, we have heard quite a lot. The second point, I am not so sure and I invite Mr Leong to confirm this, that Mr Leong and the PSP would also support this Government's efforts to reduce, if not, remove the racial elements or the chance of electoral contests being contested on racially motivated lines.

Mr Leong, the Motion before us is to abolish the GRC system. What it is silent on is, abolish to what?

It will be clearer if PSP comes to present your ideas to Parliament to say, let us abolish the GRC system and this is our alternative system. You have proposed and we have heard two suggestions. And I have also heard, if I am not wrong, correct me if I am wrong, it was said: "Let's discuss about this". I believe Ms Hazel Poa said that there are still two more years to the GE – I do not know about that. I am neither confirming nor denying when the GE will be held – but, in your belief, you said there are two more years. But what do we do from now till then?

We are running a country; we are not running an experiment.

If the proposal is to go back to an all-SMC system, then let us be clear. Then, we debate on the merit of that. But if you want us to consider, then we indeed have and I have assured you that I have thought deeply about those two suggestions.

In fact, the experience of other countries, if we may be frank, is that when seats are allocated on party votes or party lines, it is a recipe for people to campaign precisely on the sectoral interest that we hope not to see.

If seats are given to losing Opposition MPs to be NCMPs, then, I have just explained, we will end up in a House with a dominant party with the racial majority and then all our minorities are possibly, if all, if not, most of the minorities, will end up as NCMPs. Is that a better outcome?

Nobody is professing that the GRC is a perfect system. But all we are asking is that even if we take your proposal at the face value, if that a better outcome for us? Consider that carefully. First, we are not running experiments and we have to think through this thoroughly.

Unfortunately, respectfully, I cannot see how the two alternative proposals will lead to a more integrated Parliament, a more cohesive Parliament. It will end up with politics being contested on sectoral interests, if not, racial lines. It will end up with the Opposition in the NCMP seats, dominated by the minority, vis-à-vis the ruling party dominated by the majority. The minority and the majority are no longer working as a team because you do not have to compete as a team, as Mr Pritam Singh himself has pointed out. How does that help us?

Thank you. I am much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to address a point that Mr Pritam Singh raised with regard to electoral boundaries. These are not new accusations and they exist whether we have GRCs or SMCs. I just wanted to ask Mr Pritam Singh whether he knows where the term "gerrymandering" comes from, how far back it goes, and whether or not they had GRCs in those places.

I certainly raised the point. Firstly, I do not know exactly, precisely, the origins of "gerrymandering", the term. But I think, like many people, you will know it when you see it. And I think we have seen it for all and sundry for the two SMCs I had mentioned over the last decade – Fengshan, Joo Chiat. Yes, there could be gerrymandering in SMCs too. But indeed, what we have been dealing with is the GRC system. And the coincidences are quite uncanny and not just the last decade, but I referred to the table that Mr Low put forward in this House. Every constituency, where there is a tight fight between the PAP and WP, what happens? It is gone. So, until we can have some assurance from the PAP, will you stop using the GRC for this purpose?

The accusations of gerrymandering happen in every country where the electoral boundaries are being drawn or redrawn. Gerrymandering goes back 200 years or more in the US; what we consider the paragon of democracy today. And those accusations are still being made for gerrymandering.

So, it is not an issue of whether it is a GRC or an SMC.

In fact, I think as Mr Leong or Ms Hazel Poa has pointed out, it is those GRCs or those constituencies that have been won by the Opposition where it has not been changed at all. And I do not understand why the EBRC has not changed them, but perhaps, you can make a request for them all to become SMCs. That may be an interesting idea.

Mr Deputy Speaker, maybe I will just make two points in response.

So, you quoted Mr Lee. I remember that was what Mr Lee said. But let us bring it back to this Motion. Was that the only reason that Mr Lee talked about the GRC system? Was Mr Lee not expressing this in a wider context of how we formed governments? Would you not accept that? Which then comes to my second point.

So, I think, first point, please do not take things out of context. There was a context why Mr Lee said what he said. And what he said, I personally think was valid and I will come to that in a while. But that has nothing to do with today's Motion about the GRC and minority representation because what you have just highlighted was that, yes, Mr Lee was concerned about the stability and the effectiveness of any government system, especially for a small country like Singapore. And I will share with you my own views, having been in the Government, or served in the Government in various capacities all these years.

Is there a reason for us to think very hard about the kind of governance system we want, be it democracy, or whatever else people call us. Or even democracy, or the variants of democracy that the world practises. It goes back down to two points, if I may say so.

First, are we prepared to find our own solutions for our own problems and challenges, or do we just copy? And if we just copy, who do we copy from? And let us be frank, whether those systems that we intend to copy from have produced better outcomes than ours?

Do not get me wrong. We do not profess that we have found the perfect system and we have delivered the perfect solutions for Singaporeans and Singapore. But is this better than other alternatives that have been considered? That is what we are talking about. It is to paraphrase Winston Churchill: democracy may be the worst form of governance except for all else that have been tried.

So, the first question for us is – are we prepared to evolve our own system according to our needs, or do we just copy? And if we just copy, please tell us why copying another system will serve our needs better.

Second, and this is my heartfelt response to Mr Leong, I have noticed very often in this House that we bring to this House various ideas from other jurisdictions and countries. And I think we all appreciate that. It is part of our DNA to never be satisfied with our own system, but to constantly seek improvement – because we want to defy the odds of history for Singapore to be around for as long as possible, for us to have enough time to evolve into what I call the Singaporean Tribe, regardless of race, language or religion.

We want to be exceptional. We want to distinguish ourselves. But I have never believed that just by copying other people, we will be exceptional, or we can distinguish ourselves. Never.

When I was in junior college, I walked the opposite way that Minister Shanmugam said the other day. He walked out of East Sussex Lane from Ghim Moh Road to Holland Road to take a bus. I alighted at Ghim Moh Road and walked along East Sussex Lane, scrambled down the railway track to Raffles Junior College at Ghim Moh Road. My friends would know that generally, I walk quite fast.

And since that time, coming from a different family background, to say the least, I have told myself that I would never be able to compete with other people if I were to just follow them. I do not have the means and I may not have all their strengths. For me to compete, I must distinguish myself in my own ways. Every morning, when I walked down East Sussex Lane, I reminded myself of it. I have a saying: 跟潮流就是走在潮流的后端; to follow the tide is to follow and be a follower always.

I do not want my country to just follow other people. I want my country and my people to stand tall because we are bold enough to know what our challenges are and come up with solutions for ourselves. And I know we are responsible enough to not try and do experiments, but to consider things seriously.

Is democracy perfect? All of us here will agree that it has served us well, but it has its own flaws as well. One of the biggest problems of democracy is this – how do we ensure that when everybody votes, they do not just vote on this generation's interests but on the future generations' interests?

This is what I have always called the missing-voter problem. When we want to do something, there will always be suggestions, protests or otherwise. But do we not do it just because of what this generation says? Or do we not do it because it does not benefit the next generation?

As the highest legislative body in this country, we have a responsibility not just to this generation but to every generation that comes after.

If you ask me, is democracy perfect, I will tell you that it is not the perfect system. Because no democratic system, or very few governance systems, perhaps minus the monarchy, will think about two or three generations down, because they think that they will still be around.

But for Singapore, if we do not think for the future and do not think that we will be around for the future, we will definitely not be around for the future.

And so, if I put that in the context of what Mr Lee said, that is a wider context. The wider context is: how do we govern a small country with a short history, with no natural hinterland or resources except our people? How do we distinguish ourselves, find our relevance, find our own solutions, and make sure that we take care of people, not just in this generation, but in future generations? How do we evolve a system of government whereby people elected here will think seriously, not just about our generation, but also about future generations?

That is how we govern, and that is how we steward our resources – from the way we manage land to the way we manage resources – that is what distinguishes us. And I hope, long may it be, that whoever runs Singapore will always think about this and never assume that there is a perfect system, or that we can just copy someone else's system and we will be exceptional and distinguished. I do not think so. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all Members who participated in this debate.

After all that has been said, I think it is quite clear that there is no disagreement on the importance of multiracial representation in Parliament. Where we defer is simply on how to achieve that multiracial representation.

I disagree with Minister Chan when he said that our proposals do not ensure multiracial representation or prevent race-based parties. Earlier on, when I spoke about proportional representation, I mentioned this only briefly. Perhaps that could be the reason why it was not clearly conveyed. So, let me go into further details now.

Typically, in a hybrid electoral system, which is the one that we suggested, containing both elements of first-past-the-post and proportional representation, each voter has two ballots instead of one.

The first ballot is to vote for a candidate in a local SMC and the candidate with the most votes is elected. So, this should address the hon Member Raj Joshua Thomas' concern about the geographical link between MPs and their residents.

The second ballot will then be to vote for a party at the national level and the seats are allocated to each party based on their national vote share. Each party typically has a party list of the candidates. So, if a party is allocated 10 seats, usually the first 10 candidates on the party list get elected. But I am not suggesting that we copy wholesale the system that is in place in other countries, unlike what Minister Chan is suggesting. I am suggesting that we adapt such a system to meet our needs.

So, how can we adapt this to ensure minority representation?

Currently, we have 17 GRCs in total. Up to three in five must have a Malay candidate, while the other two must be Indian or others. This means that the GRC system currently ensures about 12% Malay and 6% Indians and Others representation.

We can therefore ensure minority representation by mandating that at least 50%, 12% and 6% of each political party's candidates running in SMCs must be from the Chinese, Malay, Indian or Other communities respectively. This is analogous to the Ethnic Integration Policy quota in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.

Secondly, we can also mandate that each party list must be multiracial, and the selection of the candidates from the party list must be chosen in such a manner as to meet the racial representation requirements for each party, as I have mentioned earlier. These requirements can be limited to only parties that contest in more than one seat. This is to make room for independent candidates in our electoral system.

So, by imposing these racial quotas similar to the way it is done in HDB flats, we can ensure that parties are multiracial, and they do not play race-based politics.

Another comment earlier about proportional representation is the fear of a fragmented parliament. A common feature in proportional representation is actually a threshold. Only political parties that obtain a minimum national vote percentage are allocated seats proportionally. This feature serves to screen out the parties with extreme positions and insufficient electoral support that prevents parliament from getting too fragmented.

A common range for thresholds in countries that practise the proportional representation system is around 4% to 5%.

The ballot on party list is like a national level multi-cornered fight with participation from all the political parties that wish to contest. If the results of past multi-cornered fights in Singapore elections is any guide, we are unlikely to see too fragmented a parliament.

Minister Chan earlier mentioned that the fear is that a proportional representation system would result in race-based politics and also parties that run on minority interests. I have addressed the point about race-based politics and now on minority interests.

I do not see that that is necessarily a bad thing for there to be parties with minority interests. For example, green parties have always had some minority support. Environmental concerns have now become mainstream but green parties still face great difficulties in winning elections under a first-past-the-post system. So, incorporating some level of proportional representation into an electoral system will ensure that minority concerns are also represented and that can only be beneficial to our decision-making.

When a political party enjoys clear majority support, a first-past-the-post system tends to give that party more seats in Parliament than its national vote share. We see this clearly in Singapore. As I have mentioned before, PAP gets about 60% of the national vote but nearly 90% of the elected seats.

But when political support is more divided, the outcome becomes more volatile. As an illustration, consider the other side of the coin. If 60% of the national vote translates into 90% of the elected seats; then, that means that a national vote share of 40% can result in only 10% of the seats. In other words, a drop of 20% in national support level can result in a drop of 80% in seats.

Of course, national support level does not normally drop 20% that quickly or that easily. This illustration merely seeks to point out that the volatility and unpredictability of election outcomes under the first-past-the-post system when support level hovers around 50%. At this stage, a proportional representation system actually brings greater stability and predictability.

Next, I will move on to the issues relating to the NCMP suggestion. As I have mentioned before, we are confident that our minority candidates can stand on their own and win elections. Because we also agree with the importance of multiracial representation in Parliament, that is why we also proposed two alternatives to ensure that.

The beauty of the NCMP scheme is that it does not kick in when it is not needed. But if it is needed, if not enough minority candidates can win on their own, then we need to know why and address the underlying issues head on instead of sweeping them under the GRC carpet. Racism exists in all spheres, not only during elections.

At this point, I actually have a question to ask of Minister Chan. I did not quite understand why he said that if we adopt this scheme, that all the minorities will be NCMPs in Opposition and the ruling party MPs will be the Chinese majority. Under this NCMP scheme, the NCMP can be from either party, whether the ruling party or the Opposition – unlike the current NCMP scheme, which is just for the Opposition.

Mr Murali Pillai also weighed in with his personal experience, citing examples of the kind of experience he had running his campaign and experiencing attempts by people who exploit the race card. Like I said, racism does exist. I think we all recognise that. To totally eradicate it is probably not practical, even though we would all try our best to minimise that as far as possible.

But I think the point is that they did not succeed, even though they tried to play the race card. Even though racism does exist, it is not to the extent that it actually affects election outcomes.

The hon Member Janet Ang mentioned that an article or report from IPS, I think, in 2013 about the fact that Opposition parties also similarly benefit from GRCs. That was after the Workers' Party (WP) managed to win Aljunied GRC.

I think Minister Chan similarly made the point as well that the WP and the PSP also benefited from the coat tail effect and, specifically, that I also benefited from it. I think the question here is whether GRCs are the right way and the best way for Singapore, and not whether I personally benefited from it.

The doubt is raised by Ms Janet Ang over the Opposition's claim that GRCs have had a detrimental effect on the Opposition. Allow me to quote statistics from our GEs around the time when the legislation was changed to introduce the GRC and to make further amendments to it.

As I mentioned earlier, it was done over three amendments in 1988, 1991 and 1996.

To recap briefly, in 1988, the three-member GRC was introduced and justified on the basis of minority representation. In 1991 and 1997, the sizes of GRC were increased and the total number of GRC seats, the upper limit, was increased.

Let us look at the effect these amendments had on our minority representation and political development in the GEs following these changes, which were GE 1988, GE 1991 and GE 1997.

First, we look at minority representation. In GE 1984, before the introduction of GRCs, 16 minority MPs were elected, making up 20.3% of all elected Members of Parliament. After the introduction of GRCs, in GE 1988, minority Members of Parliament made up 19.8% of all elected Members of Parliament, a slight drop compared to GE 1984. In the next two GEs, minority MPs made up 21% and 22.9% respectively.

In contrast, its effect on our political development is more dramatic. In GE 1984, before the introduction of GRCs, 38% of the seats were uncontested. In GE1988, the percentage of uncontested seats dropped to 13.6%. However, in the next two GEs, after the GRC sizes were further increased, uncontested seats jumped from 13.6% to 50.6% and 56.6% in GEs 1991 and 1997 respectively.

After three amendments, the real effect of the GRC system is this. It made hardly any difference to minority representation but led to a huge increase in walkovers. Faced with raised hurdles, which is the GRC, Opposition parties had to adopt a by-election strategy in response.

Looking at these figures, it behoves us to revisit these questions.

Firstly, why were GRCs introduced? Was it truly for minority representation or was it for political advantage? It is worth noting that in GE 2020, without any further intervention to help minority candidates, the percentage of elected MPs who are minorities has increased to 28%. This happened naturally as part of society's development, similar to the way women's representation in Parliament increased to 30% without any GRC-like intervention.

Secondly, why were the maximum sizes of GRCs increased to six? This does not help minority representation. The justification that this is done so that we need not change the boundaries so frequently is unconvincing. I am sure we have all heard jokes about how residents keep changing constituencies in each election without moving house. Was it for economies of scale? Would not the same be achieved by a few SMCs working together?

Thirdly, why were the upper limit on GRC seats increased? Is it a coincidence that as these changes were made, the number of walkovers increased dramatically?

In the recent GE, the PAP has tried to make the GRC smaller. Six-member GRCs were removed and the average size of GRCs were reduced just slightly. However, as long as GRCs remain, so too remain the problems associated with the GRC system, namely, the coat tail effect, reduced voter influence on outcome, the hampering of political development, and underserved and under-represented residents in GRCs with unfilled vacancies.

The PAP has mentioned before that even though there is a vacancy in the GRC, residents are happy with the arrangements that they have made for the other MPs to cover the duties of the MP who has left. In fact, residents have never been directly asked if they preferred a GRC or SMC system.

If the PAP is certain of this, would it be willing to ask this question to voters, using the Presidential Election as the means to conduct a referendum? I am sure this is a question that many Singaporeans would want a say in. Who better to decide how voters should be represented than the voters themselves.

Minister Chan earlier spoke about the by-election and concluded by saying that the Court has decided. Considering that Parliament is the lawmaker, the Court executes the laws made by Parliament, I think this rather puts the cart before the horse.

In the past, Singapore has benefited from a strong single-party system. At our developmental stages, many countries were ahead of us in development and provided us many examples with which to study. We could emulate where appropriate and discard where not. We could move ahead swiftly, with strong political leadership.

However, without the regular turnover of leadership and political competition, a single-party system also carries the risk of entrenching power within a small group. This can erode democratic principles and perpetuate a culture of nepotism or cronyism. Checks and balances are necessary for the longer term.

Singapore has entered a different stage of development. With each GE, the growing desire of the voters for greater checks and balances and political diversity becomes more apparent. As we move towards a more balanced political landscape, many changes will be needed. One of these is to abolish the GRC.

I urge all Members and Singaporeans to support the call to abolish GRCs and consider alternative ways of ensuring minority representation.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There were a couple of clarifications that Ms Hazel Poa asked of me. I will not go through point by point, given the time, but can I just make the following few points in response to her questions?

First, I think as a generic point, it would be good for the PSP to at least lay out their whole proposal at the beginning of the debate. I am not sure those details that you just presented were a response to my comments or you already had them worked out all before. If I may humbly suggest that if you have got it all worked out before, I think it is good for us to debate the details and know the details right from the onset instead of having it in the concluding speech because then we might have to revisit many of these issues. So, that is just a point.

Let me go to the substantive points.

In the spirit of me taking an examination today, you said that we can have Party A, B, and C, making sure that their slate of candidates has X or Y number of minority candidates to make sure that there will be representation.

So, can I just put it this way? Mathematically, unless each of the minority candidate compete in the same SMC, as you proposed, there is no guarantee that just because Party A, B, or C have so many minorities, we will end up with so many minorities in the Parliament.

Party A fields a Chinese here, Party B fields a Malay there, and Party C fields an Indian there. Does it mean that it will guarantee minority representation? So, mathematically – not correct. Not correct.

Just because people have a slate according to racial profile does not guarantee that the outcome will be a multiracial representation of the Parliament that we so desire. So, that is the first point.

The second point. You mentioned this two-vote system: vote once for the first-past-the-post and one for the proportional representation. This is precisely the problem. Once you have this, there will be a tendency and we cannot escape from the tendency that when you want to win the vote on the proportional representation, go on the sectoral interest. It could be race or religion, or it could be green issues, as the Member mentioned.

But the question for us is this – even if we consider this seriously, do we want our electoral politics where people vote on single issue outcomes, or do we want a matured electorate that we are progressing towards, where people holistically consider all the challenges facing our country? Each and every one of us will have our pet topic that we may be happy or unhappy with this Government or whichever government we want to have, but what serves our interests best?

For those countries that have proportional representation, yes, you have many parties representing many groups all on the sectoral basis. Have they become more effective in mobilising national action, whereby people are prepared to give trade-offs and consider it holistically whereby parties have to internalise the trade-offs within themselves, or is every party going to the Parliament just to contest on the basis of their narrow sectoral interests and end up with horse trading?

Is that a better outcome for Singapore? Is that the kind of system that will allow us to have the strong and decisive government that you say that is required for us to distinguish ourselves as a nation? So, consider that seriously.

Then, the third point. You mentioned – this is new to me – that the NCMP will also apply to the Ruling Party. This is new to me. Today, the NCMP scheme does not apply to the ruling party. But can I just summarise this? If the NCMP scheme applies to the ruling party, then it is essentially called a party list. Then, you just reconsider what I just said in the second point – is the party list a mechanism that will not polarise us and end up with people running on single issues? But this is new. That the ruling party shall also be entitled to NCMP, which I think, boils down to a party list.

And finally, can I just make one plea to PSP. I think we already have enough challenges trying to make sure that we have a clear Presidential Election if it is to be contested and to help Singaporeans understand the role of the Elected Presidency as we have designed it into our system – as the Head of State, as the custodian of our Reserves, Public Service appointments, and so forth. Can I just make a plea? Please do not confuse the issue and suggest that we turn the Elected Presidency into a referendum on the GRC. I do not see how this serves our democracy. We have enough challenges trying to get everyone to come on board, understand the role of the Elected Presidency. It is not a check on the Government, it is not an Opposition party; it is the custodian of our Reserves and the Head of State for us. It is not a referendum for the GRC, to say the least.