Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 26 of 64.
“But if the Opposition can do a better job, I am sure the people will support them and return them in larger numbers than what they have been doing in the last 13-14 years since we have the GRC system. On the media watch, it is not the Opposition candidates alone that complained about the coverage of the Opposition during the General Election or at other times. PAP candidates and MPs also complained that they did not receive enough coverage. If we look at the number of PAP Members, how many of them appeared regularly in the press? During a parliamentary debate, if they said something interesting or spoke on topics of significance, the media, generally, will simply have a very brief summary of what they said, although they have made a speech lasting many minutes. So, if they want to appear in the media, then make sure they have something that is newsworthy for the newspapers to report for the public, which the public has an interest, to read what they have said. During the election, I think the media has given a balanced coverage to the Opposition. The Opposition has access to the media just as the PAP has. And if they have something of importance - maybe an announcement or some exciting programme, or a good rally speech - I am sure the media will be interested to report it. For the PAP candidates, I think there are far more PAP candidates than there are Opposition candidates during any General Election. During the period of campaigning, PAP candidates had always complained to me - because I helped in organising the election - that they did not receive enough coverage. I would just say to them, "If you have something interesting, if you have an exciting programme, or it will be a good visit to somewhere that will be of interest to the press, they may cover you.”
“So, if Opposition Members do some home work, put their ears to the ground and be more hardworking, instead of waiting till nearer the election, or when the election dates are known, to start working the ground in the constituency, they may stand a better chance. That is one of the ways which they can consider, although it is not my duty to teach them how to win an election. No government party sets itself out to teach the Opposition how to win elections. And like every other country, it is the incumbent governing party that decides on many of the issues. Of course, when it comes to the vote, the people will eventually have to decide which party will give them the stability, the progress, and the quality of life that they are all looking for. The GRC situation is the same, as I described not long ago in this House. The question was raised by Mr Chiam: Why do we have GRCs? We have tried to give as many opportunities as possible, but the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act state the number of GRCs and the number of single constituencies that can be allowed in a general election. So long as these rules are followed, we are all within the law. Whether it is fair or not, I think it is fair to everyone who wants to contest. It does not mean the bigger GRC or more GRCs will favour the PAP. It also could mean that if the PAP Members do not do their work, they can lose a significant number of seats in Parliament, and that is the risk that we have weighed, and we have decided that we will do our job, make sure that we continue to get the people's support, and we are prepared to take this risk.”
“Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I will take these few cuts raised by the two Opposition Members. On the first question of General Election, Mr Chia asked why are there so many changes to electoral laws that have impeded the Opposition. I am not sure what electoral laws or regulations that have impeded the Opposition, because these same laws, regulations and provisions apply to all the candidates during an election, regardless of whether it is an Opposition, a PAP or an independent candidate. So, I am not able to answer fully his question on the laws that have impeded the Opposition. But he has made several points concerning electoral boundary, the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report and GRCs. I have explained not long ago in this Chamber why the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report was published and that not long after that, an election was called. I think those circumstances may not repeat themselves. There were instances in the past where the Boundaries Report was released and there was adequate time for people to look at the changes. But Opposition or PAP MPs should not just depend on the publication of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report to conduct their electoral or political work. I know that Opposition parties and their supporters have gone round from time to time to different constituencies to understand the ground, survey the ground, feel the ground, and see to what extent the people there warm up to them, or in what areas where the PAP constituencies may appear to have some weaknesses and problems, and therefore take advantage of them and contest in those constituencies.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the resolution on the revision of Question Time on 2nd April 2002, the times stipulated under Standing Order No. 21(1) and No. 88(2) shall apply at the sittings on 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th May 2002. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have 43 Members who have asked to speak at this debate on the Budget Statement and because we have only two days for this debate as stated in the Standing Orders and in order for all the views of the MPs to be fully reflected, I propose therefore that we cut Question Time back to the original time to end at 1.30 pm. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the resolution on the revision of Question Time on 2nd April 2002, the times stipulated under Standing Order No. 21(1) and No. 88(2) shall apply at the sittings on 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th May 2002. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OPENING OF TIDAL GATES AT KRANJI RIVER AND RESERVOIR 1. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung asked the Minister for the Environment (a) what measures are in place to warn the public about the opening of tidal gates at the Kranji River and Reservoir and (b) whether there are any other areas in Singapore where there are similar situations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move the motion standing in my name?”
“Traffic Police has been working in partnership with various organisations to promote motorcyclists' safety and to improve road safety. These organisations include the ITE Ang Mo Kio Safe Riding Club, Harley Davidson, National Safety Council, tertiary institutions and organisations with large fleets of motorcycles such as TRICON Restaurants International. A good example of such a programme carried out jointly by Traffic Police and the various organisations is the Motorcyclists' Safety Carnival organised with Harley Davidson. Another example is the Road Safety Awareness Talk organised with Ang Mo Kio ITE Safe Riding Club. These safety programmes focus on rider skills, defensive riding and the attitudes of a safe motorcyclist. Techniques such as case studies, simulated riding training, riding demonstrations are used to help participants understand the different aspects of motorcyclists' safety. In addition to these, there are ongoing public education efforts which stress the need for drivers of motor vehicles to give way to motorcyclists. Traffic Police has also incorporated new training and testing initiatives in the Class 2B training curriculum to better equip motorcyclists with the challenges faced on the roads. These include emergency braking on wet surfaces as well as night training where learner riders are exposed to riding conditions at night. BREAKDOWN OF THE UNEMPLOYED 5. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Manpower for a breakdown in the profile of the unemployed over the last five years in terms of their (i) age group, (ii)gender, (iii) marital status and (iv) education level.”
“The number of motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents, broken down by nationality of the motorcyclist and motorcycle capacity, for the period of 1997 - 2001, is reflected in the table below: Table 1: Number of motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents* Breakdown by nationality of the motorcyclist and motorcycle capacity 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Singaporeans 93 71 61 85 83 Motorcycles 76 60 43 62 63 200cc Malaysians 30 37 33 28 16 Motorcycles 29 36 33 28 15 200cc Others 0 0 0 0 1 Motorcycles 1 200cc Total 123 108 94 113 100 * This refers to accidents involving motorcycles which resulted in the death of either the motorcyclist, his pillion rider, and/or third persons (eg pedestrians). ROAD SAFETY FOR MOTORCYCLISTS 4. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are plans by the Traffic Police Department to work with motorcycling clubs and interest groups to improve rider skills and defensive riding, with the aim of promoting better road safety.”
“Sir, we do better than that. We give people a 5-year notice period, that immediately after the election is over, please prepare for the next election. MIDDLE EAST SITUATION (Singapore's position) 3. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he would inform the House of Singapore's position on recent disturbing developments on the Middle East situation, including the position Singapore has taken in the United Nations Security Council.”
“Sir, one cannot really say whether there will be a minimum period of six months before the publication of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report and the dissolution of Parliament. That decision has to be taken later by the Prime Minister, and I would not want to encumber him by telling Members that that would be the case. But I am sure the Prime Minister will take all factors into consideration when deciding on the date of the election. I cannot find any logic to the argument to provide for a two-tier deposit for different types of candidates. They are all candidates, they should all be paying one rate of deposit. If not, then I think we could quite rightfully say that we are discriminating against the old candidates. On the days of campaigning, I cannot make the connection between how this ties up with the Remaking of Singapore and the throwing up of ideas. Ideas should always be thrown up if they are good ideas, and they should be communicated to the people and, at least, they should try to convince the people that these are good ideas for acceptance. I think I should let the House know too, Sir, that in the UK, for example, they used to have a time of not later than nine days between Nomination Day and Polling Day. Then, in 1981, they amended it to no later than 10 days, in other words, between Nomination Day and Polling Day, it must be no later than 10 days, and the reason then was that Saturday was no longer a working day for election officials and the period was extended by a day. And in 1985 they changed it to 11 days because they wanted to give more time for the postal ballots to come in. So even in a large country like the United Kingdom, the campaigning period after Nomination Day is only no more than 11 days.”
“Sir, I think Mr Chiam did not quite hear me correctly. I said the opposition candidate in Ayer Rajah did not seem quite serious because he did not even bother to turn up and, in the case of Bukit Timah, the voters did not find Mr Tan Kim Chuang's platform appealing.”
“There is not much use if the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee is convened two years before an intended date of election because between then and the time of the calling of the election, there will be a lot of population shifts. In fact, many thousands of people do change addresses every month and if we have an electoral boundary fixed on a particular day and yet the election is held, say, two years or a year, or even six months after that, many voters would be inconvenienced to have to go back to the place where they stayed to vote.”
“Sir, I cannot guarantee that it would not happen but I would say that we will try not to do it.”
“I think Mr Low is trying to string A + B = C, which need not necessarily be so in his last question, ie, that because we could have law and order problems, and therefore better not have rallies. I think that is a stretch of the imagination. Rallies are not the only ways that candidates reach out to their voters. On that I disagree with him. Rallies are just one of the ways for candidates to reach out to the voters. In fact, if he says that because the rally sites are far away from residents and therefore may affect the voters' decision to vote for a particular candidate, the results will bear themselves out. One would find it quite strange that very few people attended the PAP rallies and yet thousands of them turned up at the Opposition rallies. Those who have attended rallies would know that. So I would say that as far as rally sites are concerned, it is no deterrent to people who want to attend a rally. In the case of Mr Chiam, for example, on his last evening at the Lavender Street rally site, he had 13,000 people turning up, with quite a few hundred of them spilling onto the streets. So I do not quite agree with this argument that because rally sites are far away and therefore voters would not turn up. In fact, they will turn up if they think that there is a show. Some consider this to be a show because they like to be entertained, and we are not good entertainers.”
“Sir, I do not know about the average thinking of Singaporeans. That is what Mr Chiam said. I am just quoting him. I know of the thinking of average Singaporeans. If the candidates think that $13,000 is too much and fear losing their deposit, then they really do not have the confidence that they can even get the support of 1/8 of the voters and they should seriously think again whether they should contest. There are examples of this. Dr Tan Cheng Bock will probably know. The voters there hardly saw that opposition candidate who lost his deposit. Mr Tan Kim Chuang probably did not appeal to the voters in Bukit Timah and, therefore, also lost his deposit. But any serious candidate, anyone with a good platform, should have no problem convincing 1/8 of the electorate to vote for him. The idea of two categories of candidates is, I think, a very amazing one. I cannot see the logic behind this suggestion: that new candidates pay less and incumbent candidates or MPs who have retired and want to contest again pay more. Why do we discriminate between different types of candidates? They are all candidates. After all, if he is an elected MP, he is an elected MP. There are no differentials in rights for the MPs if they are elected. So why does the hon. Member want to have different classes of MPs and different classes of candidates?”
“Please check the record. I will repeat it here again for his benefit. What I have said was that the Committee was already doing its work and when it had finished, the report was published. Because of the September 11 incident as well as the urgency to deal with the economic problems we were facing, the Prime Minister decided on a quick election. That is what I said. The results bore themselves out that the decision was correct and the people gave the PAP a very strong mandate to ensure that we would deal with the problems we are facing now. On the question of minority candidates, we all know that in all our constituencies, the racial distribution is quite even. We have explained before that the purpose of the GRC is to ensure that we have minority representation in Parliament and that is why we decided to have GRCs. It has served our purpose that we now have minority candidates in Parliament. Whether we need three, four or five others, it depends on the configuration of the constituency. In some areas, it may be more convenient to group them in three, some maybe four, some maybe five, and some maybe six. From experience, this has borne out to be correct.”
“That is where I am confused by Mr Chiam's question. Firstly, he did not hear me correctly. I did not say that the publication was due to the September 11 incident.”
“That is right. So we have that, and we have achieved the purpose. I do not understand the purpose of his question.”
“Sir, I agree that the timing of the publication of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report was rather short. It was an unusual occasion because it was just after September 11 and with the economy in recession, the Government has to deal with urgent issues facing us. The Electoral Boundaries Review Committee took quite a short time - I would say about three or four weeks - to complete its report, although the officers might have done some work resulting from the changes in the population as well as the shift in the voters. Immediately after the report was ready, it was published. The Prime Minister then decided that it was necessary to go to the people to have a mandate to deal with very urgent problems confronting the country and we found out that, indeed, the decision was a correct one. Mr Chiam asked why do we need three, four or five non-minority candidates to be in the GRC. Is that the question?”
“Sir, my colleagues are very kind to me to wait until 8.06 pm to listen to this last motion. Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Dr Balaji Sadasivan Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung Mdm Halimah Yacob Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Swee Say Dr Wang Kai Yuen Mr Wong Kan Seng. The purpose of this Committee of Selection is to appoint Members to this Committee so that they can appoint Members to the other Sessional Committees. Sir, I beg to move. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Dr Balaji Sadasivan Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung Mdm Halimah Yacob Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Swee Say Dr Wang Kai Yuen Mr Wong Kan Seng. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes past Eight o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“If it suits our circumstances, our social context, then we should take these ideas. If they do not, then we should not graft them into our system. Otherwise, we will be the worse in for it.”
“Sir, it is not a question of whether we have confidence in our people or not. I believe our people are sophisticated enough. But in every society, there will be extremist elements who will try and there will be groups of people who will believe in them and, therefore, we must not provide such opportunities for groups and for people like that to gather together and find a seat in this place. That is precisely the worry that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has, that when we select NMPs, we may invariably or unwittingly bring in an extremist. We hope that will not happen because every time we have a list of NMP candidates, we circulate the list to all MPs for their comments and views. If by any chance, Members know any of them who holds certain views that we should not entertain in this House, then they must register their points strongly with the Special Select Committee. That vote, in a sense, is with Members to tell us who the NMP candidates are and why they should not be here. As far as standards are concerned, we will maintain the standards. We have to maintain standards. Of course, much depends on the kind of people we have coming forward. If we cannot find nine good men or women, then we shall not have nine of them. We shall have a fewer number, so be assured. Last time round, we only have eight. We will make sure that our standards are maintained. If, unfortunately, one of them did slip in, because either we do not know the person's background or he did not show it earlier, then in one term, we will find that out and he will not be around the next. That is very simple. When do we learn from other people and when do we not learn from other people? We cannot have hard and fast rules about what to take and what not to take. We have got to see whether it is useful for us.”
“We have evolved over the years to allow for NCMPs, NMPs and GRCs where all races can be represented in this Parliament. Were there further changes? Of course, we changed the Presidential system. We have an Elected President to ensure that certain safeguards are in place to protect our reserves, veto key appointments and certain key decisions of the Executive, like the ISA detention. We would change, but we should not rush into just overhauling and changing the system completely that we become unbalanced to the detriment of Singapore. I have just covered very briefly the few points made by Members. I have to come back here every term to ask for this motion to be passed and even then, in the Fourth Schedule, it says that NMPs can be appointed for two years, which means if Parliament lasts the full five years, then we have to start the process of selecting NMPs three times during the full five-year term. I am going to propose, at an appropriate time, a change to this 2-year term, to stretch it out to 21/2 years or 3 years so that, within one Parliamentary term of 5 years, we only need to do it twice. Otherwise, if you remember, like the last term, we had NMPs who only served about one month or so, yet we have to go through the whole process of public advertisement, inviting members of the public to send in nominations and interviewing them, and so on. This is an administrative change which I will have to put forward to Parliament at an appropriate time when we amend the Constitution.”
“Following the same argument that Mr Chiam is worried that NMPs dilute the Opposition, I think that is a real reason for him to fear why we should not have NMPs, which also means that he has got to work very hard the next time round to find people to join him and be convinced to their cause. But Mr Low's serious point is that if we want to talk about getting more representation and more views, why not change our political system to proportional representation or have a mixed system. Do not forget that Singapore is a small country, a multi-racial and multi-religious country. The moment we have a proportional representation system, we are going to have different sectional, communal, religious interests represented in this system. Then we are going to have a very unstable system. In Western Europe, many of the Parliaments there do have a proportional representation system. As a result, you can see that, as far as policy-making is concerned, and as far as the government is concerned, it has not progressed that far. It becomes very difficult for decisions to be made, for laws to be passed and a lot of trade-offs and compromises would have to be made. There is one country that attempted a mixed system, which is proportional representation plus the first-past-the-post system, and that is New Zealand. In the same way, they have almost ground to the ground - very difficult for policies to be passed and laws to be made. In a small Singapore, where we have so many constraints, we have so few alternatives and choices and only one or two ways of deciding on a policy, we do not have that luxury of choice. We should think very seriously before we change the system. But that does not mean to say that political systems should not change. We have.”
“If I remember Mr Steve Chia correctly, when he was talking about this point, he said that we do not need the NMP scheme at this time and that after two years, if it shows that the elected MPs did not prove themselves, then let us bring back the NMPs. Maybe he should read the Constitution. The Constitution, in the Fourth Schedule, says that at the beginning of every term and within six months, which is now, Parliament must resolve to have NMPs. Once we go beyond six months, and we do not so resolve, we cannot have any more NMPs during this Tenth Parliament. He would have no chance to come back here and introduce a motion to get back NMPs unless he gets elected in the Eleventh Parliament. Now on the issue of representation. In our system, representation means "first-past-the-post". It means that a candidate must get 50% plus one vote, then he gets into Parliament. He may get 49.99%, but he is still voted out. So he has no representation at all. Mr Steve Chia does not represent 34% of the people who voted for him. He just received 34% of the votes and, therefore, he has not the same right as Mr Chiam has to be here. And he came in here because we have a system to allow NCMPs to come in here. Mr Low Thia Khiang raised a more serious point. Apart from the reasons he cited, he said that the original objectives why we should have NMPs were not really fulfilled. I do not think that is the case because, if that is the case, we would not be talking about NMPs here. If NMPs show up the inadequacy of the Opposition, then that has got nothing to do with us. It just means that the Opposition just does not have enough numbers. And if the NMPs outshine the Opposition, then the Opposition has got to work very hard the next time. They have got to find other ways of convincing people.”
“He himself is not subjected to any Whip at all at any time, unless Mr Chiam wants to impose it on him. Mr Chiam's argument, about people rejecting the NMP, is really a great leap of imagination. I do not understand how an individual, having been here as an NMP, eventually went out and contested in an election and got rejected by the people, rejected him because they do not want him to be an elected MP, means that they do not like the NMP system, that is beyond me.”
“In the other parliaments, eg, the British Parliament, Malaysian Parliament or even, if I may call the Canadian Parliament the daughter of the mother of all parliaments, they too have an unelected Chamber called the Senate. 105 of the Senators are totally unelected. In fact, in the British House of Lords, 713 of the Lords were totally unelected and yet they have as much or, if not, a lot of authority, including coming up with new Bills and passing Bills in the House of Lords. Sir, I will not belabour this point. I just clarify that, indeed, there are different ways that we can structure a parliament and, in our case, it is just a unicameral Parliament and we have devised a scheme to allow unelected Members to be brought into this Chamber. That is an interesting device because we have allowed others to come in and take part in our debate, which otherwise they would not have been because we do not have a second Chamber. It is because of the way that we have been evolving our parliamentary system that we have NCMPs too. So I am quite puzzled as to why Mr Steve Chia would want to object, because, following the same purist principle, which he so strongly supported Dr Tan for, then he should not be here, because he is also unelected. He came in by the grace of the PAP Government that changed the Constitution that provided for the NCMP system that allowed him to be here. And I also hope that Mr Steve Chia would not begin to speak like a PAP MP because, if he does, then people will really be confused. The Whip is not applied to him. He does not need to talk about the Whip at all. So whether we have a Whip or not is our internal Party business. So he does not need to remind our MPs that they are not subjected to the Whip.”
“I am quite clear, Sir. This is the third time I am doing this, and I have heard many of the arguments before. I spent the whole of last night going through this fairly thick file which the Parliament Librarian was very kind to photocopy for me, and I am very familiar with the arguments. In fact, if Members were to go through the same Hansard, they would have noted that Dr Tan made these same arguments in the Hansard reports in 1989, 1992 and 1997. So I will not go through all these points again because Members can find my answers there too. But there is one point which is not quite clear to many Members and that the Prime Minister himself has answered it quite eloquently way back in 1989 when he was explaining the meaning of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. And the Prime Minister took some time to research into the meaning of these terms and quoted one paragraph from this book by Mr Stanley de Smith on the Constitutional and Administrative Law, which said: "At common law, Parliament, as the legislative body, consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Queen", and that, of course, is in reference to the British Parliament, the mother of all parliaments. In other parliaments, eg, in Malaysia, they too have a similar provision in Article 44 of the Constitution, where it says: "The legislative authority of the Federation shall be vested in Parliament, which shall consist of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and two Majlis (Houses of Parliament) to be known as the Dewan Negara (Senate) and the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives)." Of course, in our case, we have the Constitution that provides for the legislature that consists of the President and Parliament, and we have a unicameral Parliament. We do not have a two-tiered Chamber.”
“Point of order, Sir. I do not think Dr Tan is quite clear about what he wants to ask. Maybe he should go back and think about the kinds of clarification he wants to seek, whom he wants to seek from and then ask that person. Otherwise, we can be here befuddled about what he is thinking about.”
“It suffices me to sum up by saying that NMPs have been a plus for our Parliament. Many have distinguished themselves. Their objective, non-partisan views on a wide range of issues brought before this House have added value. Sir, when I moved a similar motion in 1992 and 1997, the Party Whip was lifted. Now, for this motion, the Whip will also be lifted. Question proposed.”
“At a sitting on 5th June 1997, when we debated the motion on having NMPs at the start of the Ninth Parliament, I also said that the Government would con- sider further improving the NMP selection process, by expanding the number of functional groups invited to submit nominations. Thus, for this Tenth Parliament, the Government would like the Special Select Committee to also invite an additional three functional groups: (a) social and community service organisations; (b) tertiary educational institutions; and (c) media, the arts and the sports organisations - to submit nominations. The Special Select Committee will nominate a coordinator among the constituent organisations of each functional group. Each coordinating organisation will then consult its constituent/constituents and eventually submit up to two names of two individuals to the Special Select Committee for consideration and interview. Sir, the Government hopes that the outcome of doubling to six the number of functional groups involved in the selection process will be an even wider cross section of NMPs entering Parliament, whose diverse but non-partisan viewpoints ought to make a contribution to our Parliamentary debates. Mr Speaker, Sir, the merits and usefulness of having the NMP scheme have been thoroughly debated since the Constitution was first amended to provide for it. At our subsequent sittings of Parliament to resolve to have NMPs, we also exhaustively argued over the need to continue with the scheme and we voted for it. So I would not repeat the reasons why we should have the NMPs in this term of Parliament. For those who are interested, I would recommend that they run through the Hansard on all the debates that we have had in the last three times.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament. Since 1989, the Singapore Constitution has provided for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). However, before they can be appointed, Parliament must so resolve to have them at the beginning of each session of a new Parliament. This is why I am back here the third time moving this motion at the beginning of the Tenth Parliament. The last two occasions when I moved a similar motion were on 29th May 1992 and 5th June 1997. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the implementation of the NMP scheme in 1990, Parliament has granted 26 individuals the privilege to take part in the proceedings in this House. While not all of them made the same level of contribution to the debates in this Chamber, they have, generally, acquitted themselves well, with some serving two terms of four years. Over the years, we have also increased the number of NMPs from two to six, and then to nine, and improved the selection process by having proposal panels to nominate representatives of functional groups as NMPs. So, in 1997, apart from inviting the general public to submit the names of suitable persons, the Special Select Committee on NMPs wrote to organisations representing three major functional groups: (a) business and industry; (b) labour; and (c) the professions - to propose candidates for this Special Select Committee's consideration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, pursuant to Article 42(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, each Deputy Speaker shall be paid a monthly allowance equal to 12 per cent of the monthly salary and allowances (excluding the annual fixed bonus) payable to the Speaker with effect from 1st April 2002. Sir, the allowance payable to the Deputy Speakers had been set at a percentage of the actual salary received by the incumbent Speaker. Parliament is requested to approve the motion, which will set the Deputy Speakers' allowance rate to 12% of the Speaker's part-time remuneration. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 42(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, each Deputy Speaker shall be paid a monthly allowance equal to 12 per cent of the monthly salary and allowances (excluding the annual fixed bonus) payable to the Speaker with effect from 1st April 2002. NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (Motion) 5.20 pm”
“Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Speaker shall be paid with effect from 25th March 2002:- (1) a monthly salary and allowance equal to 50 per cent of 1.64 times the salary and allowance payable to a Senior Administrative Officer on the minimum point of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) as specified in the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service; (2) a non-pensionable annual fixed bonus pegged at the norm Performance Bonus rate of a Senior Administrative Officer on the minimum point of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) as specified in the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service; and (3) a GDP Bonus pegged at the GDP Bonus rates payable to a Senior Administrative Officer on the minimum point of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) as specified in the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service. REMUNERATION OF DEPUTY SPEAKERS (Motion)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Speaker shall be paid with effect from 25th March 2002:- (1) a monthly salary and allowance equal to 50 per cent of 1.64 times the salary and allowance payable to a Senior Administrative Officer on the minimum point of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) as specified in the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service; (2) a non-pensionable annual fixed bonus pegged at the norm Performance Bonus rate of a Senior Administrative Officer on the minimum point of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) as specified in the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service; and (3) a GDP Bonus pegged at the GDP Bonus rates payable to a Senior Administrative Officer on the minimum point of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) as specified in the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service. Sir, in accordance with the Constitution, Parliament has to decide whenever a new Speaker takes office, what he is to be paid. Previous Speakers performed their Parliamentary duties part-time. This part-time arrangement has worked well over the years, and will continue. There is no need, in the foreseeable future, for a full-time Speaker, as among other things, Parliament does not sit every day. The Speaker's full remuneration, like those of Ministers and other elected office bearers, is pegged onto the salary scales of the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service. Parliament is requested to approve this motion, to fix the Speaker's remuneration to 50% of the full-time rate. Question put, and agreed to.”
“I do not think we can predict what would be the trend in the future because nobody can tell us what is going to happen in the future. While we can set some rules, I do not think we should be so rigid as to say that we should meet immediately one month after the General Elections (GE). There could be many reasons why we cannot meet immediately. But if there are important or urgent reasons that we have to meet immediately after the GE, then there is no doubt that the Government will seize upon the opportunity to do so. But, here, we cannot commit that in future we will have a sitting one month after the GE. Much depends on the circumstances. I think the less we tie ourselves down with rules, the better it is. We should do what is necessary, what is useful, and what is important. Besides, immediately after the GE, there are many issues to be settled. Many of the programmes that the Government put up before the GE are ideas that we should pursue, and we need time to thrash them out; we need time to think through the major issues, and in this instance, for example, the key challenges we face today are economic restructuring and the new threat of the terrorists. So these are the two key challenges and therefore these are not issues that we can immediately come back to Parliament after the GE and settle. We cannot solve the problems even after the Budget. It will take some time for issues to be studied and to come out with programmes to resolve some of them. We cannot resolve all of them even in the Budget in May. LAND RECLAMATION OFF PULAU TEKONG (Impact on Malaysia) 2. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for National Development what is the situation regarding the land reclamation off Pulau Tekong and its possible impact on the Malaysians.”
“Thousands of Singaporeans, including students, have learned more about Parliament as a result of their educational visits to this Parliament complex. All of us here deeply appreciate Mr Tan Soo Khoon's distinguished service and achievements in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Tan once lamented that someone had asked him why, as the Speaker, he could not speak. Now that he is no longer in the Chair, there would be no such constraint. We certainly look forward to his active participation in the debates of this House. Sir, this Parliament now has 84 elected Members and one new Non-Constituency Member. Among the 84 elected Members, 25 of them are new PAP Members of Parliament. May I welcome all of them warmly. My advice to all the new MPs is that they should make the best use of their time in Parliament, speak their minds freely on issues which are important and of concern to Singapore and our people. Let conscience be their guide and contribute actively to the debates in this House. We certainly look forward to their participation in this Chamber.”
“Although not legally trained, I believe he has managed to "unravel himself from some of the complexities of the rules of procedure". Under his charge as Speaker, our parliamentary debates and all other business of Parliament, including those of the Select Committees and the Committee of Privileges, proceeded most smoothly, efficiently and effectively. As some would put it, it is "like clock-work". He has guided the proceedings in this Chamber most fairly, always giving every opportunity for Members to speak. Despite some long rambling speeches made from time to time, Mr Tan was always patient in hearing them out. He was also indulgent on some Members who pressed on with repetitive questions even though the questions were already answered. He only interrupted when he thought that enough was enough. One of the key achievements during Mr Tan Soo Khoon's tenure as Speaker is the building of this new Parliament House which was officially opened on 4th October 1999. He chaired the Parliament Building Committee, formed in 1993, which planned and built this New Parliament House. He made many study visits to other parliaments and learned from them. As a result, this House has incorporated many upgraded features which will serve Parliamentarians well into the future. During his Speakership, Mr Tan also strengthened relations with and enhanced our status among ASEAN, Commonwealth and other Parliaments, through the various parliamentary delegations he led and conferences he attended. To bring Parliament closer to the people, Mr Tan initiated the Parliament Internet Homepage in May 1996. Internet-savvy readers, local and overseas, can now know more about our Parliament. In 1998, Mr Tan also set up an Education Department to educate Singaporeans about the Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of all Members of this House, it is my honour and privilege to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. With your extensive experience as a Member of this House since 1984, and as a Deputy Speaker for 4 1/2 years from January 1989 to June 1993 and as a Minister thereafter, Members have no doubt that Parliamentary proceedings conducted in this Chamber, with you in the Chair, will continue to be in accordance with the best traditions of fairness, decorum and propriety. All of us, Members of this House, pledge to support you and cooperate with you in the discharge of your heavy responsibilities. Sir, on behalf of the Ministers and the Members, past and present during his tenure as Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Tan Soo Khoon, your distinguished predecessor. [Applause.] Mr Tan had served as Deputy Speaker for nearly 4 years, from March 1985, before he was elected Speaker in the Seventh Parliament, in January 1989. In my congratulatory speech at that time, I said that Members had every confidence that Mr Tan would discharge his responsibilities with great distinction. He indeed lived up to our expectations and we were delighted to re-elect him as Speaker for two more terms in the 8th and 9th Parliaments. In 1989, on his election as Speaker, Mr Tan had said that "he hoped to maintain the high standards and traditions set by his predecessor (Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng).. I found myself at times trying to unravel myself from some of the complexities of the rules of procedure." Mr Tan has amply fulfilled his pledge. He indeed upheld the dignity of this House by ensuring that order and decorum were observed.”
“Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past two'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“Yes, we will look at all kinds of systems that may come by. In fact, after we showed the prototype to Members of Parliament and after we got a vendor to come up with a system and they are still working on it, I also got a briefing from the Indians who had an e-voting system, a simple gadget which had been implemented in several states in India. We have looked at the system. It is very simple, and we are exploring that too as a possibility. Of course, there is one missing key element in that Indian system, and that is the inability for us to know whether it is a real voter or somebody else who pressed the key. Whereas in our system, we have a serial number, and in case there is a challenge or a petition to the court, the court will then say, "Check, open this up", and we will know whether there is such a voter or not. But in the Indian system, this check is not available. So we have asked them to explore whether they could put in something that will allow us to trace, whether it is a real voter with the right name in the register. As regards to holding a large reception by our missions, our missions would have to take all the factors into consideration, including the importance of the occasion, the security aspects, as well as other considerations before they decide whether to have or not to have a large reception. I must leave that to the missions to exercise their judgment. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].”
“It is all right if Mr Chiam does not like it. But Mr Low Thia Khiang, when he made a speech here during the debate on the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill, welcomed it.”
“We would like to do the road-show with the equipment and the system that closely resemble what we are going to do for the actual e-voting. Then it is meaningful in the public education exercise. If we were to use the prototype that the Elections Department and its vendors worked out to educate the public, I think it may confuse the people. So we have to wait for that said system to be ready before we can start the road-show to educate the public. As I have said, the system is not likely to be ready until the end of this year. So, we cannot have road-shows definitely before the end of this year. As to how many constituencies will have this e-voting, I have said, as a pilot, we will choose one or maybe two single member constituencies. It is small scale, big enough for us to try out and, at the same time, give us a hands-on experience as well as educate the public on what e-voting is all about. If Potong Pasir would like to volunteer, we will think about it.”
“Even for the Intelligence Committee in the Congress, I do not think they are privy to every bit of intelligence information, but they receive Congressional notes, briefings from the intelligence agencies. If need be, we will tell the public what happened but we will choose what to tell, because we also have to make sure that the sources of information that we receive are also protected. By nature, security must be something that we must take very seriously, and not simply publicise it every time we receive a piece of information. We will tell the people as much as we can. Sir, I think I have answered most of the questions that were raised by Members here. If there is anything that I have missed out that Members think is important, please raise it again.”
“Maybe if Mr Chandra Mohan can find a way of doing so, please secretly tell me about it! On Mr Chandra Mohan's question on calling for the GE and his suggestion that we do not call for it until the situation is more secure since we have up to August 2002 to call it, let me say that it is the prerogative of the Government to call for an election any time between now and August 2002. Who is to determine that this is the best time? It surely must be the Government. Who is to say that if we extend this to August 2002, we can expect no further unforeseen circumstances? I cannot guarantee that. I cannot tell him that if we defer this for the time being until the attack is over, until the terrorist counter-attack, everything will be peaceful and calm and we will back to our life as per normal. I cannot guarantee that today. Even before September 11th, in some places, maybe he can. But there is no utopia on earth. Unfortunately, we cannot tell what may happen between now and August 2002. So the Government has to choose the best time to have an election. It may be coming soon. It may be August 2002. So, we will have to wait and see. If people expect that election is coming soon, then let them be prepared for it. If they think that we should follow Mr Chandra Mohan's advice and wait till August 2002, so be it. I think we let it be like that. About giving information to people on security threats that we face, we would like to share as much as possible but, at the same time, we must also not unnecessarily alarm our people about every piece of information that we receive. Even in the United States, I do not think that all the key people are privy to all the secrets and intelligence information.”
“To try to expand all that into other areas, I think there are other issues that we will have to deal with as well. So we will leave that to later, when we have tried out how the selected Missions can implement a system like that when we have overseas voting. On whether to have it in the other four Missions, apart from Washington, like Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan suggested, Mr Simon Tay made a valid point that we should not be selective in allowing Singaporeans overseas to vote. Besides, the security consideration is the same. We are not saying that only the United States has a problem. In my speech, I have said, at length, that we cannot expect what will come the next day. Unfortunately, Mr Chiam was not here when I explained in great detail the reasons why we have decided to cancel this registration of overseas voting, and he raised, in his speech a number of questions which I have actually dealt with. I would suggest that he reads my speech when the Hansard is out. Or if he would like to borrow a copy of the statement, I would be pleased to show it to him. Regarding Mr Chandra Mohan's suggestion to secretly tell overseas voters about voting in a secret location, we cannot find a way to inform citizens secretly about voting in secret places. No matter how ingenious we are - we are clever - but not that clever to find such an ingenious way of informing citizens secretly about secret voting locations. One of my Permanent Secretaries once told me when I was a young officer, "Kan Seng, when two persons know of a matter, it is no longer a secret." So, how are we going to tell thousands of overseas Singaporeans, "This is a secret location. I tell you secretly, please go and vote on this secret day." It is just beyond my ability to think about it.”
“So, this also deals with Mr Chandra Mohan's point. We cannot design a system just like that. It takes expertise, many, many experts and hours, to come out with something. And if the country that has the most experts and that is most knowledgeable, the United States, has not tried it, I think we must fear to tread. On the question of right to vote, I have dealt with this at great length - whether citizens have a right to vote and whether overseas citizens have a right to vote, and there were many verbal gymnastic sessions that we had been through, I would not go into this detail here today. If hon. Members will refer to the Hansard as well as to the other speeches I have made, we have settled that quite clearly. No doubt, some people may still raise this question, but the law is very, very clear. The law, as it stands before our amendment to allow for overseas voting, is quite clear that only citizens resident in Singapore can vote. Then we amended the law to provide for citizens overseas to vote, provided they meet certain conditions. We have set the conditions and we will now see how that will work out before we consider any change to these conditions. So I will not deal with that for now until we have tried that out. As to whether we want to open up more centres in other parts of the world, in other countries, whether it is going to be in Perth or Shanghai or Shenzhen, etc, I have also said that the five centres that we have selected are the five capital cities and, according to the Vienna Convention, these are places where we have our consular officers there, we have our diplomatic community there and we conduct our business there as a sovereign Government. That we will continue to do so.”
“Apparently, I am told that this has taken some time, and issues on whether the acceptance tests and the certification tests can be ready in time before the next General Election or not, we do not know because, from the current timetable, they are supposed to complete this process by the end of December. So, if the system is ready and we have elections, then, yes, e-voting will be implemented. But when we have elections and the system is not ready, then certainly we cannot use e-voting as a pilot in a one or two constituencies that we plan to do when I last spoke. So that is the status of electronic voting. Let me now come to the other parts of the debate which several Members have also spoken, and I thank them for raising their views here and allowing me an opportunity to clarify some of them. Mr Simon Tay asked us to look at the way of securing overseas voting and to come out with an electronic voting system. Even a simple system like that in which we talk about touch screen and keying in "Yes" or "No" and which party, etc, already takes time. And that is not even electronic in the real sense of the word, where it is transmitted from one station to another. It is just a simple system in a particular polling station and nothing goes out of that space. When you have electronic voting or secure overseas voting, through either the Web or through some other means, that is an issue far more difficult than the e-voting that we are planning. Even in the United States, I believe one state has commissioned an expert study on this and they have come to the conclusion that, today, there is no safe way of having Internet voting or voting on the Web. There is no way that it can ensure that the system works for them in the way that they wanted.”
“Sir, let me first deal with the question from Prof. Chin Tet Yung about electronic voting. I moved an amendment in Parliament on this some months ago. Indeed, the Elections Department has been progressing with this matter for many months ever since Parliament approved having electronic voting in the coming General Election. They have been working very closely with the vendors and the systems designers to come up with a system. In fact, even before that, they also have a prototype plan to educate the public about how e-voting is supposed to be done and a session was also arranged for our MPs to see how the system works. But the details have yet to be worked out and these details have to be worked out with the technical people, the software writers, the designers, as well as with the vendors who supply the system. And that is only one part of it. The key part of it is how to ensure that electronic voting is supposed to do the job that we want it to do, ie, to allow voters to vote in secret. We have agreed that the Auditor-General should be the authority to certify the system. The Auditor-General has appointed a consultant to work closely with his staff, to help them look into this system to ensure that its objectives are met. They have been doing this for the last several months. The Elections Department has also spent money buying equipment and on developing software to develop the electronic voting system for use in the coming General Election. But there are many issues to be resolved. The key part really is in the certification exercise, as well as the matrix involved in determining what goes in.”
“The Bill provides for suspension of the relevant provisions related to overseas voting only until the polling day of the coming General Election. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Elections Department has already distributed brochures and application forms to our missions overseas. It also briefed the officers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who, in turn, briefed the mission staff and helped out in the public enquiries and registration there. The polling booths and ballot boxes that were specially made for overseas voting were also ready. In fact, some officers were sent to the five missions on 26th September when the announcement was made by the Elections Department to assist the missions in the registration of overseas voters. As I have explained at length, the overriding consideration is that of security. However, there may still be sceptics or cynics who will choose not to believe this. So should there be an election soon, they will say, "There you are, I told you so." Let me reiterate that the Government's responsibility is to protect its people. We will avoid putting overseas Singaporeans at unnecessary risk in situations which are not within our control. The Government could still call a snap election if it wanted to. But it has nothing to do with cancelling overseas registration. Conclusion Sir, the Government is just as disappointed as many Singaporeans are that there will be no overseas voting in the coming General Election. The Elections Department would have gained valuable experience if overseas voting at the five missions proceeded as planned. The Government hopes that the Singapore citizens abroad who had intended to cast their votes at these five voting centres will understand the extraordinary international security situation which has made this decision necessary. Finally, I stress that this is only a temporary suspension of overseas voting. It is certainly not a permanent reversal of Government policy.”