Raj Joshua Thomas
Singapore
“I hope the Minister will consider eventually extending the obligations and penalties under the Bill to buyers of outsourced services. One way, Sir, that we can immediately deal with this would be to issue tripartite guidelines or amend existing guidelines to specifically proscribe such practices by service buyers.”
“I ask this because there are news reports that the deal is already off. But the reason for today’s Bill is precisely because MAS does not have a basis to reject the deal for reasons other than prudential aspects. I would just like to ask the Minister for clarity on the process.”
“Mr Sapari championed and led the implementation of the earlier PWMs and Ms Lim continues to lead the secretariats. It is without exaggeration to say that these two people are probably the two people, in Singapore who have contributed the most to the success of the PWMs, and through the PWMs, the uplifting of the lives and livelihoods of t…”
“Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State how will FWAs interface with the Progressive Wage Model (PWM)? For flexi-load, for example, where a worker in one of these sectors requests to work less days, that may bring his gross wage to below the PWM prescribed wage floor.”
“In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister what efforts MCCY makes and will be making to educate co-op members of their rights under the Act, what they will be doing to educate COM members on their duties, including efforts taken in cooperation with the Singapore National Co-operative Federation.”
“Sir, no, that is not what I was saying. I was, essentially, asking why is it that the Member stopped at a certain point, because in the example that he used, the UK, it was not only Ministers who declared their assets, but all members of parliament had to declare their assets. So, that was the point that I was making.”
The complete record
Every one of 260 lines we hold for Raj Joshua Thomas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his Budget that, in my view, puts money in the right places, including investing in Singaporeans in the long term. My speech today is in two parts. First, I will speak about the culture of work in Singapore. Second, I will speak about uplifting the wages of workers in the professions of the hands. Let me begin by saying that I am heartened by the investments the Government is making in our workers – through the enhancements to the SkillsFuture Credit scheme and the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Allowance as well as the subsidy for mature workers to take another full-time diploma. This will help to ensure that our workers are able to keep themselves relevant and future-ready. But these schemes will not bear fruit if our workers do not have the correct mindset and our culture of work is not conducive. The culture of work in many countries, including in Singapore, is changing. I welcome some of these trends, like flexible working hours and working from home, as they can help to create work environments that are conducive to an ageing population and supportive of couples having more children. I am more cautious of other trends and suggestions – like a very short workweek and a right to disconnect from work. Many of these trends originate and emanate from developed economies. Singapore is, of course, also a developed economy, but we are very different from many of these other countries – some of which have natural resources or hinterlands that they can tap on. Singapore's sole resource is our human resource, upon which all our success has been built. As the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, "You know the Singaporean. He is a hardworking, industrious, rugged individual; or we would not have made the grade.”
“In particular, it is important that the Judiciary plays a role when there are wide powers granted to the executive. Sir, I look forward to the Minister's response on my clarifications. But notwithstanding, I support the Bill.”
“Second, what are the safeguards that will be implemented to ensure that these wide powers are not abused? For example, when would a person under investigation be considered to be a suspect on which the new provisions could be used and what would constitute "reason to believe"? I hope these would be made public so as to allay concerns about how these powers would be wielded. As regard to FMEs, I am broadly supportive of the move to make it an offence out of the refusal to submit to an FME as part of Police investigations and for there to be adverse inferences drawn in the event that a person refuses to do so. This will help the Police obtain evidence that is often determinative in a case. I am, however, concerned about the new section 40I which will allow Police officers to use reasonable force to carry out FMEs which, based on the press release by the Ministry, could be used to obtain, amongst other things, hair samples and buccal or cheek swaps. Again, I would like to ask the Minister what are the safeguards that would be implemented to ensure that such sanction of force is not abused. Could the Minister elaborate on when a person would be considered a "suspect", whether internal approval would have to be sought by investigating officers before resorting to force and what exactly may force be used to obtain? I would also like to ask whether the Minister had considered including a provision to require that the Police first obtain a warrant from the courts before using force and why such an institutional safeguard was not included. In all three of these amendments, there could have been a greater role for the Court to play. Fundamental to rule of law is the principle of separation of powers and the need for different parts of Government to check on each other.”
“In this regard, I had intended to seek the Minister's clarification on whether there would still be a role for the bench and lawyers to play, for example, in the constitution of the panel of experts. But Minister had pre-emptively already answered this when he said that retired Judges and lawyers would be included. Could the Minister consider that the chairperson of the panel should always be a member of the bench and that legal experts should also, as a matter of course be included in it? Before I go on to the other two sets of amendments, I also do note that both the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the hon Minister of State had said that the Minister's decision is subject to judicial review and this provides some comfort. Sir, the other two sets of amendments I am concerned about are the expansion of Police powers as regards searches without warrants and FMEs. Once the Bill is passed, the Police will now be empowered to conduct searches without warrants when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence that may aid in their investigations is in the possession of or power of within the power of a suspect of an arrestable offence. Based on the illustrations in the Bill, the Police may search a suspect's place of residence without warrant. They may search the premises of another person if the suspect is at that second person's premises and they may even check the workplaces of the suspect. These are very wide powers for searches to be conducted without sanction by the courts via a warrant. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the following points. First, following the passing of this Bill, in what circumstances would the Police now have to obtain a warrant from the courts before carrying out a search?”
“If he was subject to an SEPP and had been assessed to not have been rehabilitated, he could have still be detained and we could have avoided having two additional innocent victims. But the question that arises then is this: in whose hands should lay the power to deprive a person of his liberty? My view is that it is the preserve of the courts and that the abdication of this prerogative should occur only in very narrow circumstances. I can accept, for example, that in matters of natural security, where there may be urgency and because the Minister is himself the expert and also because of the grave consequences of delaying to act, that the Minister be empowered to take certain actions to detain certain persons. But even in that situation, there are checks on the Minister's powers. The Internal Security Act (ISA) provides a role of the President to play in detentions under that Act, including in some circumstances empowering the President to make decisions with personal discretion. The bench is also involved in the advisory committee reviewing a detention under the ISA. But this important review and oversight function does not appear to be sufficiently articulated in the SEPP after the completion of the minimum sentence. This is despite that the scenarios we would encounter in the case of an SEPP would not have the same urgency nor secrecy of information as we would see in the ISA. The reports for consideration as to whether to continue to detain an offender can be prepared in advance. There should not be concern over secrecy as this is a matter of public protection and the information regarding the offender would already be a matter of public record as he had gone through the court process at trial.”
“although Parliament may determine the scope of the courts' sentencing power through the legislative scheme that it prescribes, including by specifying mandatory or minimum sentences, the sentencing function of the courts cannot be enlisted to disguise what in substance is a decision of the Executive." In this regard, a salient clarification is what standard of proof would the Minister apply when considering the report of the Detention Review Board? Must he be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as a Court would have to be in imposing a sentence? I note that the hon Minister of State had said the approach by the Detention Review Board will be scientific and rigorous, and she had also shared some of the criteria. But this is the report of the Detention Review Board. How would the Minister look at it and what is the standard that the Minister is expected to treat it? Furthermore, would the Minister also produce a publicly available report that will justify and explain why the offender should be further confined? I also acknowledge that the SEPP would apply to a very narrow class of offences, those stipulated in Schedule 7. These are very serious offences, like culpable homicide and rape. And I agree that the Minister's concern is very real. In fact, in comments that the Minister made to the media last week, he raised the same example he raised today of an offender who had served a sentence of 19 years jail and had been given 24 strokes of the cane for having committed statutory rape of his six-year-old stepdaughter and who, within three years of being released, had been convicted of then sexually assaulting two of his grandnieces and he was subsequently sentenced to the maximum 20 years of Preventive Detention.”
“The Minister may then make one of several orders, including continuing to confine that person for a period not exceeding 12 months, provided that the total period of confinement does not exceed the notional sentence that would have been imposed on the person if he had not been acquitted for unsoundness of mind. In the event that the Minister assesses that the person should continue to be confined beyond the initial 12-month period, the Minister must make an application to the Court. As such, the decision to continue to confine the person remains with the Court. If the SEPP was designed in a similar manner, it would have had to include just one additional step from the current regime proposed in the Bill, that the Minister would have to make an application to Court for each 12-month extension. In my view, this would be appropriate, as both regimes apply to extra-sentence situations. For section 252, there is, in fact, no sentence because the person would have been acquitted and for the SEPP, it would be further confinement after the minimum sentence had been completed. I acknowledge that the SEPP is, in and of itself, a sentence, that is a Court would have to sentence an offender to be subject to the SEPP. But does this come close to an abdication of the sentencing powers of the Court at the end of the minimum period of the sentence to the executive? In this regard, the principle of the Court's role in sentencing articulated by the hon the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in his keynote address at the Sentencing Conference in October 2022 is instructive and I quote his honour: "...”
“The idea is that the Courts determine the punishment commensurate to the offence and once that person has completed his sentence, his retributive debt to the state can be considered to have been satisfied and he can reclaim his liberty. With the SEPP regime, however, an offender could continue to be deprived of his liberty even up to the duration of his natural life, even after he has paid his retributive debt and not by decision of the Courts. My second concern is precisely this, that the power to continue to deprive this person from his liberty lays in the hands of the Executive and not the Judiciary. Under the SEPP, the Minister may release the offender on license after he has served the minimum term or he may decide to continue to detain the offender up to life, of course, after having taken advice from a panel of experts. I am curious and would like to seek clarification from the Minister as to why the regime was structured in this way, instead of following the regime for the safe custody of a person acquitted for unsoundness of mind under section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under the Penal Code, any person found to be of unsound mind at the time of the commission of an offence is to be acquitted. Such a person, having been found by the Court to be of unsound mind should naturally be assessed and be considered for remaining in the custody of the Government as he may pose a threat to himself or to people around him. In this regard, section 252 provides that the Court is to order that such persons be kept in safe custody and reported to the Minister. Within one month, a designated medical practitioner is to assess that person and propose measures to be taken to minimise the risk of him causing harm to himself or to others.”
“First, the terms are imposed by the Court after having considered all of the evidence before it, including expert reports. Second, there is finality to the terms, that is, they are a for a fixed duration so there is certainty as to the period of incarceration. The SEPP, on the other hand, is quite different. First, there is no certainty as to the period of incarceration. While the Court would pronounce a minimum sentence when sentencing the offender to the SEPP, the actual period of incarceration may be extended indefinitely by the Minister, who will be advised, of course, by a panel of experts. This jars with at least what is my understanding of the process of the larger process of how sentencing comes about. Parliament enacts laws that define both offences and the punishment for them. These punishments are often enunciated as ranges of fines and/or imprisonment terms and are based on Parliament's view of the severity of each offence and what the offender needs to do to fulfil the retributive angle of justice. The punishments are balanced against other offences across laws and updated from time to time. When an offence is committed, the Courts look at the range of punishment prescribed and the facts of the matter, determine the severity and apply a sentence within the range. Where the sentence includes a term of imprisonment, there is a single point term, which presents the maximum time that a person may spend in prison. The prisons may apply restitution, such that the offender actually serves less than the actual sentence. But there is a single-point sentence that the offender knows he will not go beyond.”
“Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer who takes up criminal matters from time to time. Sir, the current Bill introduces several amendments to criminal procedure, several of which I am supportive. The move to codify the long-standing Kadar obligations derived from common law, for example, will give statutory footing to criminal disclosure practices that AGC and defence lawyers have already been practising for many years. This having been said, I am concerned with three of the proposed amendments. The first is the new sentencing regime under SEPP. The second is the expansion of Police powers as regards carrying out searches without warrants. The third is the amendments related to FMEs. Let me begin with my concerns on the SEPP. The SPP and the more severe SEPP framework replace the existing Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD) regimes. The CT and PD regimes apply to repeat offenders whom the Court believes may continue to be a threat to the public if they were to be sentenced per the sentencing frameworks for the offences currently before the Court. The Court substitutes the sentences they would have received for their offences with a separate term of incarceration, that includes rehabilitative measures during the period of incarceration and that may include supervised early release into the community. The CT regime applies to offenders aged 18 years and above, with a term of between five and 14 years; and the PD regime applies to offenders aged 30 years and above, with a more substantial term of between seven and 20 years, as it is intended to apply to more serious offenders. There are two important features of these regimes.”
“The above having been said, this Bill is an important chink in our armour against undue influence that may be used against Singapore's interests and will complement existing legislation to protect Singapore's national security and economy. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“In this regard, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister as to the definition of "national security interest" in the Bill; and specifically, whether it would be aligned with the definition of "considerations of national interest" as elaborated by Minister Yaacob Ibrahim in the context of the Films (Amendment) Bill, which I mentioned earlier, or otherwise. Again, I would like to emphasise that consistency in the use of terms across statutes is important and that these definitions should be clarified at the earliest opportunity to avoid ambiguity and uncertainty. In fact, the point made by the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong just in his speech before mine is interesting, where he asked whether a CEO who joined an opposition party, whether such a situation would be considered as contrary to national security. So, if we can define what the term is properly and clearly, then we can avoid such concerns or such assertions being made, which may mislead the public as to the intentions and the results of the application of the Bill. My second question is with regard to the possibility of listed companies being designated as designated entities, in particular, defence-related Singapore-listed companies. I note that the list of designated companies will be published after the enactment of the Bill. First, I expect that the mere fact that a company is a listed company would not deter the Government from designating it as a designated entity if necessary. In such an event, how will the Government ameliorate any adverse effect on the share price of such companies if they are announced to be on the list of designated entities, so as to avoid undue effects on investors, in particular, retail investors, in these companies?”
“However, I separately note that pursuant to the introduction of FICA, we amended, inter alia, the Societies Act to change the mention of "national interest" to "national security and interest". It, therefore, follows or suggests that "national security", "national interest" and potentially "national security interest" may actually refer to different things. I note that in then-Minister for Communications and Information Dr Yaacob Ibrahim's speech on the Films (Amendment) Bill in 2018, the Minister provided another relevant definition, that is, the definition of "considerations of national security". He defined it as including what would be "detrimental to the continued existence of the country, its ability to exercise its sovereign rights and the safety and security of citizens and their way of life". While it may appear pedantic, it is important for us to have consistency of definitions across statutes, especially when the use of a particular term or particular similar terms confer wide-ranging powers to the respective Minister as it does in this Bill. It is also important to clarify what exactly the term means to give guidance to the Office of Significant Investments Review, which will be set up after the enactment of the Bill, on what exactly are the activities they should be looking out for, particularly as regards non-designated entities that have acted against Singapore's national interests, pursuant to clause 32 of the Bill. It would also help to identify what activities or transactions entities should avoid so that they are not inadvertently caught by the provisions of the Bill.”
“Sir, I rise to support the Bill moved by the hon Minister for Trade and Industry. The Bill follows on the tails of an international wave of jurisdictions introducing or tightening laws with similar intents over the past few years. Over 50 jurisdictions have done so. I think the Minister mentioned at least 23 countries, but my research seems to suggest that there are over 50 jurisdictions that have done so. The UK Parliament enacted the NSI Act in 2021, which entered into force in 2022. In Germany, the government made amendments to the Ordinance on the Designation of Critical Infrastructures, which came into effect in 2022, that significantly expanded the scope of entities that qualify as operators of critical infrastructure and lowered the investment thresholds in certain critical infrastructure sectors, for example, IT, telecommunications and energy. There are also similar laws in the US and in Australia. I have two clarifications on the Bill. My first clarification is on definitions and the consistency of definitions across statutes. The term "national security interest" is used extensively in the Bill but is not defined in the Bill; and the term "national security interest", in that order – "national", "security", "interest" – also appears to be quite unique to this Bill. The Personal Data Protection Act, or PDPA, has a definition of "national interest". It is defined as including "national defence, national security, public security, the maintenance of essential services and the conduct of international affairs". So, national security is included in that Act in the definition of "national interest".”
“Based on a SingStat report in 2018, 97% of law practices in Singapore have 30 and less practitioners. Their value-added contribution, however, was only 38%, while the 3% of larger firms, contributed to 62% of value add. This House has made several changes, including those before the House today, to the legal profession over the past few years, in order to position the industry for the future. These changes must not only benefit the 3% of large firms, but also help to unlock the latent value in the other 97% which would significantly increase the overall value add of the legal industry to the Singapore economy. In this regard, I trust that the Ministry will continue to ensure that the benefits of the changes to the profession are equally accessible by lawyers in smaller firms as well as in large firms. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“Would the approved corporations have the ability to choose which trainees to accept? And I hope that the system will ensure fair access to trainees from all firms: small, medium and large. We should avoid a system where trainees at larger firms have a higher chance of being involved in these attachments, just by virtue of being at these firms, and those from smaller firms are being prejudiced. Third, I would like to ask if the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary could provide some clarity on how the moratorium for practice training contract applications, also to be given effect by subsidiary legislation, would operate. Sir, I am concerned about the impact that these changes may have on smaller law firms of 30 and less practitioners. The longer training period means that law firms that take on trainees will not be likely to charge for their trainees' work for a longer duration. Clients of smaller firms, with generally tighter budgets, may not be amendable to paying for trainees' time, costs or for their work, although their new designation of lawyer (NP) may be persuasive to some extent. So, could the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary give some clarity as to whether the time and cost of trainees could be charged to clients? Furthermore, with a longer training period, trainees may expect higher allowances, because their higher full-time fee earner salaries will be pushed back now by six months. This may be difficult for smaller law firms to swallow. As I mentioned earlier, the three-month attachments, as part of a training practice contract, could also end up being prejudicial to smaller law firms, if the corporations can and do pick primarily brand name law firms from which to accept trainees.”
“Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. The proposed amendments have the effect not only of changing certain aspects of new lawyers' training regime, but also restructures the legal profession by introducing a new category "lawyer (non-practitioner)", or lawyer (NP). I would like to seek a few clarifications on the amendments. First, could the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify what exactly a lawyer (NP), who is not pursuing a practice training, is qualified to do. For example, would the lawyer (NP) designation be the required minimum, in order for a person to be an in-house legal counsel in Singapore? The lawyer (NP) designation may also confuse members of the public as to whether these persons are able to provide legal advice or to act legally for them, which remains the preserve of advocates and solicitors holding a practicing certificate. In this regard, I urge the Ministry to take steps to ensure public communications to equip members of the public to be able to tell the difference. Second, I note that the Ministry intends to now allow, via subsidiary legislation, up to three months of a practice training contract to be completed at approved in-house legal departments of approved corporations. I support the spirit of this move, as it would give aspiring advocates and solicitors good exposure to the work in corporations that would contribute to a more well-rounded training experience. However, could the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide some clarity on the approval process for these corporations and in-house legal departments? Furthermore, could the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary also clarify how lawyers (NP), and the law firms they are training with, would have access to these three-month attachments?”
“This was observed at our local Singapore churches. We must all make continuous efforts to protect and bolster our multiracial and multi-religious society, where the necessary measures are taken by the relevant parties. I trust in Singapore's level headedness and generosity and that our reaction will be to come together to collectively provide humanitarian support and prayer for the victims of war. Sir, I support the Motion as amended.”
“But armed conflicts invariably lead to tragedy, as people lose their lives, their loved ones and their homes. What we can see definitively is that we support humanity and the alleviation of the suffering of people who are caught in conflicts, in particular, civilians, children and hostages. This includes more than 1.4 million Palestinian refugees who have been displaced from their homes, and this Motion also makes this call. I am happy to read of the various ground-up measures to raise funds and provide aid for communities in Gaza. For example, the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation has raised over $4.5 million in less than two weeks. These funds will be used to provide healthcare supplies and shelter for those affected in this conflict. Finally, I support the Motion's call for Singaporeans to safeguard and uphold our multiracial and multi-religious peace and harmony. It is understandable that such conflicts can invoke strong feelings in our communities. We must take care that such overseas situations do not affect our societal harmony. In this regard, I was heartened to read that the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) is developing a religious advisory to guide Muslims here on the response to overseas conflicts, such as the current conflict, and has been actively engaging the Muslim community to provide an understanding of the conflict from the local religious perspective. This is particularly important in light of the increasing prevalence of people turning to social media, like TikTok, as a source of news which may contain misinformation and incendiary posts. Other religious communities have also been involved in their own way. His Holiness Pope Francis called for a day of fasting and prayer on 27 October 2023 to intercede for an end to the Israel-Hamas war.”
“The West Bank is markedly different from neighbouring Israel, with a significantly lower quality of life. I went past checkpoints and saw from afar the Jewish settlements and security surrounding it. On the one hand, I understood the Israeli security measures. On the other, I understood the Palestinians' desire for freedom of movement in their own land. I could also see that there was no easy solution. One thing that is clear, however, is that both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples' overriding desire is self-determination. The right to decide their own destiny and the right to live in their country with security and freedom of movement with access to economic amenities and jobs and opportunities for advancement. To have the freedom to practise their own religion, to build homes and families and to grow their economy, society and culture and to stand proudly amongst the people of the world. This can only be achieved through a two-state solution that this Motion reiterates Singapore's support for. I hope that Singaporeans will see the complexity of the situation in the Middle East. It is not so easy to unequivocally say "I support Israel" or "I support the Palestinians", because there are legitimate justifications, arguments and concerns on both sides. In this regard, Ambassador Burhan Gafoor's qualifications in his explanation on our vote in the United Nations on the protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations is as important as Singapore's vote in favour of the resolution. Ambassador Gafoor deeply regretted, first, that the resolution omitted to mention Hamas' abhorrent attack on Israel and the abduction of innocent hostages; and, second, that it also omitted to acknowledge Israel's legitimate right to defend its citizens and territory.”
“The current conflict is not a new conflict. It is an escalation of sustained attacks by Hamas on Israel over more than two decades and responses by Israel. Since 2001, Palestinian militants have launched tens of thousands of rocket and motor attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip. These attacks have been described and condemned as terrorist attacks by the United Nations. These attacks have also been condemned by the Palestinian Authority that governs the West Bank, as it says that rocket attacks undermine peace. In 2023, before October, there were over 1,500 sporadic rocket attacks into Israel, with the largest attack in May 2013. Hamas' 2017 Charter declares the state of Israel as illegal and illegitimate and states that its aim is the elimination of Israel. Israel's Foreign Minister told the United Nations, following the October attack, that Israel had vowed to destroy Hamas. He said and I quote, "How can you agree to a ceasefire with someone who swore to kill and destroy your own existence?" But, Sir, the situation is complex. Both Jews and Arabs claim a historical right to territories in and surrounding Israel. Layered on this are overlapping religious claims and sensitivities. The Al-Aqsa Mosque, which sits atop the Temple Mount and Wailing Wall, for example, continues to be a recurring flashpoint. I led a trade delegation to Israel in May this year. We arrived the week after a barrage of rocket launches into Israel. The Israelis have built for themselves a modern cosmopolitan country in which they enjoy a First-World lifestyle despite the constant threat of attacks. I extended my stay after the trade trip and made my way into Bethlehem and Hebron in the West Bank.”
“Sir, I thank the hon Members Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for raising this Motion. This Motion is important for three reasons. First, it reiterates Singapore's principled approach to such conflicts and our commitment to UN's processes and rule of international law as underlying basis for international relations. This has been our consistent approach and it is an important foreign policy cornerstone for us as a small state. Second, it acknowledges that there are victims on both sides of the conflict and that both sides should ensure the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian aid. Third, the Motion calls on us in Singapore to uphold and protect our multiracial and multi-religious way of life. We have seen how this conflict has precipitated racial attacks in several countries. The Guardian reported yesterday that Britain is facing the worst wave of hate incidents in modern times, with 1,000 recorded after the Hamas attack, which included assaults targeting children and schools. Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations reported a rise in Islamophobia with incidents and requests for help spiking by 182% since the Hamas attacks. In Singapore, our strong multi-religious and multiracial relations act as a bulwark against such reactions, aside, of course, from such acts being illegal and liable to strict prosecution by the authorities. While inter-community trust in Singapore is high, dialogue among the Government, religious leaders and Singaporeans of all communities is critical to keep our peace and I understand that significant efforts have been made in this regard. It is important for us to continue to do so, and everyone has a part to play, as mentioned by other speakers.”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Ministers for setting out in the Ministerial Statement the AML/CFT measures. I would like to ask if the Ministers could shed some light on how it is that despite what appears to be a very comprehensive set of measures which have been ranked well internationally that such huge amounts of money were still able to enter into our financial system? How is it that these monies could also be spent in various types of transactions? Secondly, related to my earlier question, I would like to ask also whether there was any indication of complicity on the part of our Singapore-regulated banks and/or their employees in facilitating transactions carried out by the accused persons.”
“There were simply none disclosed in Ms Poa's speech. For the reasons I had set out in my speech, I will not support the Motion raised by the hon NCMPs, and I will support that raised by Minister Indranee.”
“But Parliament operates within the constructs created by the Constitution, by law and by our SOs. Whether it is to do with the suspension of a Member, formalities like Points of Order, apologies or Guillotine Times for Budget Cuts, or larger questions like how to ensure free and fair debate in this Chamber, there are laws, rules and procedures that apply to all of us. If a Member disagrees with these constructs or thinks that there are better ways to do things, then it is open to that Member to propose to amend them and for Parliament to consider these proposed amendments. It is an MP's prerogative. But as long as these provisions stand, they must be abided by, and Motions, Debates and proposals must be framed within them. This is called the rule of law. Where there is public concern and emotion on certain matters, it is an indication to our Government to address these matters and to assure the public, which is what the Prime Minister and other Ministers had done in relation to this matter at the last Sitting. It is not a licence to proceed to do something outside the constructs of the law in a knee-jerk reaction. As much as I can understand public frustration with having to wait while investigations are underway, we must allow due process to run its course. And as difficult as it may be in a public justice system where accused persons are publicly mentioned, we must maintain the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I was titillated by the academic idea of the Motion, I was deeply disappointed in the substance of it. A Motion that calls for the suspension of a Member must necessarily as a basic premise first set out the legal provisions upon which the proposed suspension would stand.”
“In the current matter, the presumption of innocence continues to stand unrebutted and any move by Parliament to suspend the Minister as an MP is not only premature but does not have legal legs to stand on. For completeness, there is also no mechanism to suspend merely an MP's salary. In this regard, I cannot support the Motion by the hon NCMP. I will support the Motion by the hon Minister Indranee Rajah. Her Motion restates the standards that we expect our MPs to have. It affirms that they are to be treated fairly but firmly in the period after investigations are initiated, but before the presumption of innocence is rebutted, and resolves to deal with the matter at hand once the outcomes of investigations are known. As a final point, Sir, I would like to confess that unlike Mr Lim, who was disturbed by it, when I first saw the Motion, as a graduate in both political science and law, I was quite titillated by this question of the circumstances in which an elected MP could be removed, suspended or otherwise prevented from exercising the mandate given to him by voters. I listened very carefully to Ms Poa's speech to identify the legal leg upon which her Motion would stand – but there was none. In fact, Ms Poa even glossed over the basic requirement to invoke any of the avenues for suspension, which is that the presumption of innocence must first be rebutted. The matter involving Minister Iswaran has understandably created anxiousness and some amount of consternation amongst the public. As a polity that prices transparency, fairness and incorruptibility, it is not unexpected that questions on egalitarian treatment or just or unjust remuneration have a reason in relation to this case. These matters invoke emotions in people.”
“As regards contempt, the MP must first have had to be found to have committed contempt by a Select Committee or found guilty in a court of law, pursuant to prosecution by the Public Prosecutor, or if an MP was summarily determined by Parliament to be guilty if the alleged offence was committed in the view of Parliament or where it was Sitting. The Standing Orders (SOs) also provide for suspension of a Member. SO59 provides that Parliament may suspend a Member but specifically so for the commission of the offences of disregarding the authority of the Chair or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of Parliament by abusing the rules of Parliament. Such a suspension requires that a vote be put to Parliament to determine whether such an offence had actually been committed. Ms Poa referred to SO59(5). If I may read that out, "Nothing in this Standing Order shall be taken to deprive Parliament of the power of proceeding against any Member according to any resolution of Parliament." This does not mean that Parliament has the ability or the right to willy nilly decide to pass resolutions and to suspend Members for any reason. These resolutions must be pursuant to one of the provisions that I had mentioned earlier. So, the common thread through all of these prescribed potential avenues for the suspension of an MP is that it must have been judged or determined in the manner provided that an offence had actually been committed. In the current matter involving Minister Iswaran, the case is still under investigation. No judgment or determination has been arrived at. I therefore come back to what I started with.”
“Article 46(1) of the Constitution provides that an MP will continue to be an MP from the time of election until the next dissolution of Parliament. The MP's seat would only become vacant under certain circumstances, which are enumerated in article 46(2). These include: (a) resigning; (b) failing to attend Sittings in two consecutive months without obtaining leave from the Speaker; and (c) becoming subject to the disqualifications from being a Member of Parliament like being convicted for an offence by a Court and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $10,000. The principle of tenure of an MP is important. It is a nod to the fact that MPs are elected by the people, who are the highest source of authority in a democracy and that they should therefore not be easily removable by any other authority in the land. This underlying reason should also apply to suspensions because the suspension is imposed by a body other than the people and prevents an MP from carrying out what he was elected to do. It should therefore not be a lever that is easily available and should only be used under very narrow circumstances. Suspension is provided for in sections 21(1)C and 21(2) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962. The narrow circumstances in which it may be invoked is where the MP has displayed dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt. Importantly, these circumstances must be proven. As regard abuse of privilege, an MP must be first found guilty of abuse of privilege.”
“Sir, there are two applicable principles that this House should look at when considering the Motions before us. The first is the legal principle of the presumption of innocence, which have been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Lim. The second is the legal and democratic principle of tenure of office as provided in the Constitution. The first is a simple, almost universal principle that where a person is being investigated or has been charged with an offence, he is to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. The Government's stated position is equivocal support for this principle. As the hon Minister for Law said in response to the hon Member Christopher de Souza's Parliamentary Question on this in August 2008, I quote, "Let there not be any doubt on this point. The presumption of innocence is an important and fundamental principle, and it is one of the foundations of our criminal justice system. The Government is absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence as a core principle in our commitment to the rule of law." The principle is also applied by the Courts in Singapore. In a judgment by then Justice VK Raja, also in 2008, His Honour wrote, "If the evidence is insufficient to support the prosecution's theory of guilt, the judge must acquit the accused... it simply has not been proved to the satisfaction of the law that the accused is guilty, and the presumption of innocence stands unrebutted." As it stands, Minister Iswaran is still under investigation. No charges have been brought at this point and no determination has been made by a Court. Therefore, the presumption of innocence continues to stand unrebutted. The second principle is that of tenure of office.”
“I will, however, support the Motion as amended by hon Member Nair as it addresses my concerns that we do not inadvertently affirm that a Speaker be politically independent, meaning not being part of a political party, but instead, that he should discharge his duties independently and impartially which is indeed what we should expect of the Speaker. It may seem a small change but Mr Nair's amendment changes the meaning of the Motion and removes doubt as to what exactly Parliament is affirming.”
“In addition, the Indian Supreme Court had also opined on this matter and its pronouncement is worth mentioning because it sets out the underlying rational as to why a party-affiliated Speaker could still be impartial. In the case Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Hon Speaker of Karnataka, the court was faced with the petitions of five members of the Karnataka State parliament against the Speaker of that house, who had refused to accept their resignations. The court said: "The speaker, being a neutral person, is expected to act independently while conducting the proceedings of the house or adjudication of any petitions. The constitutional responsibility endowed upon him has to be scrupulously followed, the court made it clear that his political affiliations cannot come in the way of adjudication." The court continued that if the Speaker is not able to disassociate from his political party and behaves contrary to the spirit of neutrality and independence, such person does not deserve to be reposed with public trust and confidence. In other words, the court was saying that it is incumbent then on that house to invoke the relevant procedures to correct or, if necessary, to remove the Speaker. All this having been said, I come back to first principles – that is, that our Constitution does not require that our Speaker be independent. Procedurally, I do not think that this House can affirm a Motion that is inconsistent with the Constitution or that would purport to constrain the provisions of the Constitution.”
“Thankfully, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is no longer a hazard of that office or of your office. And it is in this regard that I will also take this opportunity to congratulate you in your elevation to the Chair. The role of the Speaker in the UK has evolved with its independent nature solidified in both procedure and custom in the 19th century. Such custom includes, for example, that an incumbent Speaker runs in the general elections not under a political party ticket but as Mdm or Mr Speaker in elections, and it is generally unopposed. The UK Parliament also abides by what is known as the "continuity principle", where an incumbent Speaker after being re-elected in a general election, would be re-elected as Speaker even if there was a change of the party forming the government. This custom is not something that is present in our system. Most other jurisdictions that have a Westminster-type parliament also do not have an independent Speaker. India and Canada flirted with the idea, but both came to the conclusion that an MP who was elected as Speaker could be impartial without having to be independent. The Canadian parliament rejected the notion that impartiality required independence and considered it a non sequitur argument – it was not considered an unreasonable expectation of the Speaker to separate his party allegiances with his duty to parliament. It also determined that it did not possess the customary nor procedural history that the UK had to support an independent Speaker – an argument I similarly make in relation to our House. In India, the committee considering this question came to similar conclusions as the Canadian parliament.”
“All Speakers since then, as mentioned by both Mr Leong and Mr Nair, have been elected MPs from the ruling party. I do not know the exact reason why the first two Speakers were non-MPs, but I can fathom that it may well be because Parliament was young at that time and wanted to have eminent local lawyers who would be familiar with formal procedure to chair the House in its early years. Once MPs had sufficient experience, they were called upon to serve as Speakers and have done so until today. They have done a good job and their fairness has largely not been questioned by Members on both sides of the House. Furthermore, even a cursory survey of current elected MPs would throw up many names who have the knowledge, experience, temperament and wisdom to serve as Speaker. It is only if we cannot find one within that we should look without. And we can find many elected MPs to take up the role. As mentioned by hon Member Nair, our Singapore system is different from the UK system, where the Speaker, upon his election, severs ties with his former political party so that he is, in all aspects of the job, a completely non-partisan figure. This independent character of the Speaker was attained over a long, gradual and uneven process over 300 years, and it evolved in response to the particular political situation in the UK. Members may know the origins of the position of the Speaker in the UK. The Speaker is called the Speaker because he was the person appointed to speak to the King on behalf of the House of Commons. The Speaker was expected to provide the King with the politically unvarnished views of the House. It was considered a dangerous position as Speakers were from time to time subject to the guillotine if the King was not happy with what the Speaker spoke.”
“As such, this Motion, as it was originally crafted, would be envisioning a situation where only non-MP MPs who stood in the elections as independents and won, or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) could be considered for the position of Speaker. Let me deal first with independent MPs. First, there have never been independent MPs elected to the Singapore Parliament since Independence. So, this option can be dispensed with immediately. Second, I have read media reports suggesting that NMPs be considered. But, Sir, we are, quite honestly, hardly a proper source, given that our term is only half of a Parliament's full term – although some of us may serve two terms, which is not usual – but we are not senior, nonetheless, to backbenchers with sufficient experience to chair the House and to carry out all the other roles of the Speaker. We would not want a revolving door of inexperienced Speakers. In any event, given that Speakers do not take part in debates, it would be contrary to the objectives of having NMPs, which is to provide for alternative voices in Parliament. As regard to a non-MP serving as Speaker, there have been two such Speakers, as mentioned by hon Member Vikram Nair. The first was Mr AP Rajah, who was the first Speaker of the Parliament of Singapore. He was the holdover Speaker from the previous Legislative Assembly of Singapore. Mr Rajah had at one time been a member of the Legislative Assembly and was an eminent lawyer. He later became an ambassador and a High Court Judge. The second Speaker of Parliament, Mr Punch Coomaraswamy was also a non-MP. Mr Coomaraswamy was also an eminent lawyer and later also served as an ambassador and a High Court Judge.”
“Sir, I thank the hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) for raising the Motion. I will not be able to support the Motion as introduced by the NCMPs. While I agree that the Speaker of Parliament should be impartial and that Parliament should be a fair arena for debate, I cannot agree with the original Motion's call for the Speaker to be independent. The term "independent" in the context of Parliament or in politics has a particular definition. In his speech, Mr Leong appears to conflated the words "independent" and "impartial", but the fact that they both appear in the Motion suggests that they are intended to mean different things. When applied to a Member of Parliament (MP), the term "independent" would generally mean that that MP is not affiliated with a political party. This definition is used not only in Singapore, but in most, if not all, Parliamentary democracies. Article 40(2) of the Constitution provides that the Speaker of Parliament may be elected from amongst MPs who are not Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries or from amongst persons who are not MPs. The Constitution does not require that a Speaker, whether drawn from MPs or non-MPs, to be independent. Furthermore, article 46(2)(b) of the Constitution also provides that an MP's seat will fall vacant if he ceases to be a member of, is expelled or resigns from, the political party for which he stood in the election. Therefore, it is a non sequitur argument to expect that an MP elected as Speaker should resign from the party, he had been elected to Parliament with, as he would lose that seat.”
“Yes, Sir. I am asking the question because I am the President of the Security Association Singapore, which also represents private investigators. So, the clarification that I wanted to make was whether Mr Leong was conflating the use of private investigators and the general taking of videos in public. The Private Security Industry Act does provide that in a security assignment or private investigation assignment involving a political figure which is defined as the President, the Prime Minister, a Minister or a Minister of State, then there is a requirement to get the approval from the licensing officer. But in other cases, which is what Minister Shanmugam mentioned, where there were people who took a video of him in public, there is really no need for that and the Private Security Industry Act would not apply.”
“Yes, Sir, and also, to clarify what Minister Shanmugam had said about the Private Security Industry Act.”
“Sir, if I may just seek clarification on Mr Leong's question on private investigators?”
“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.]”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”