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 3 of 64.
“Sir, I am not clear exactly what principle Ms Sylvia Lim or the Workers' Party stands for. Is it that in principle it is wrong to accept nine NCMP posts, assuming that the PAP won all the seats and in principle it is all right to accept one NCMP seat and not nine?”
“I think Singaporeans and the Members here would like to hear the answer. If the Workers' Party is so fundamentally against the NCMP scheme, would Ms Sylvia Lim now say that she will no longer come back to Parliament? I hope not. So, I would like to ask Mr Low or maybe Ms Sylvia Lim, because now she is the new leader, to tell us if the Workers' Party will take up the NCMP seat if we do not have nine elected Opposition Members.”
“And when the PAP forms the Government, it has clear legitimacy and mandate and moral authority. So to argue with that, we do not have the mandate or legitimacy, I think is a fallacy. It is wrong. People have returned us to power with a strong mandate for many years. For the Workers' Party, I think what they should do is to look out for good candidates to contest and convince the voters that they are the right party to replace the PAP Government. There is no question about what we have done. Whether a bigger GRC suppresses the Opposition or not and whether it is unfair to the Opposition or not, if there is a groundswell against the PAP, regardless of the kind of candidates we have or the quality candidates we have, people will still vote against the PAP. In fact, in two elections, in Eunos and in Cheng San GRC, the Workers' Party nearly won. So is that the fault of the GRC? Definitely not. Surely, after almost 15, 20 years, Workers' Party should really reflect on those elections and consider how to win more seats in the next election. I think that is the way to do so, not to complain that the NCMP system has been unfair to them. Since Workers' Party feels that this NCMP system is not quite democratic and is not what they will support – in fact, they do not support this whole Bill at all – then, perhaps, I would like to ask Mr Low Thia Khiang, as the leader – for once I thought Mr Low Thia Khiang has abdicated that position to Ms Sylvia Lim, because Ms Sylvia Lim, as an NCMP, spoke up for the Workers' Party instead of Mr Low Thia Khiang against the NCMP scheme – whether if, in the next election, the Workers' Party or the Opposition parties do not win nine seats, will the Workers' Party take up the NCMP seat?”
“The PAP had already thought about making sure that we do have some Opposition voices in Parliament way back in 1984, not just because we have lost an election but because the people want to have a strong government. And the results testify to that in subsequent years – in 1988, 1991 and up to the last election in 2006, people continued to vote for the PAP as the Government and, at most, four Opposition MPs were elected in the 1991 election. And in all the other GEs, only two were returned. So the NCMP scheme has a purpose. So far, it has allowed only one NCMP to come into Parliament but, with this amendment, it will allow up to nine NCMPs to come into Parliament. It shows that the reason why we have the NCMP scheme is to enable alternative, differing, opposing voices from the Opposition to come into the Parliament and convince Singaporeans that their policies and programmes are better than those of the PAP. And in the last 20-odd years, people have seen what the Opposition can do and they continue to vote for the PAP. Therefore, I would suggest that for the Opposition parties, they should not blame it on the NCMP system, they should not blame it on the GRC system or on boundary delineation or gerrymandering. Ultimately what counts is the kind of candidates you have contesting elections, whether they are able to secure the support of the majority of Singaporeans in order for them to get elected into Parliament. If the Opposition cannot do that, please do not use the excuses of GRC or boundary delineation to complain that they have no chance. In fact, every political party setting out to contest in an election should really field their best possible candidate to ensure that they form the Government.”
“Some other MPs are also concerned about the NCMPs misconducting themselves. I do not think we need to worry about this because Parliament's Standing Orders are quite clear as to the conduct and behaviour of MPs and, at the same time, when a complaint is made to the Committee of Privileges, the matter will be looked into under the Parliamentary Privileges, Immunities and Powers Act. All these will be enough to regulate any un-parliamentary or disruptive behaviour of any MP. Let me now address Ms Sylvia Lim's questions. Ms Sylvia Lim started off by saying that the Workers’ Party opposes the whole Bill, not just NCMP, not just NMP, but also the other two issues even if it covers two other topics which are not related to the election. Ms Sylvia Lim talked about the GRC system and complained that the GRC system plus what she called gerrymandering in the boundary delineation have been unfair to the Opposition. We know the history of the GRC. Long ago, we decided that because people do vote along racial lines, we decided to have a system that will ensure that Parliament will always have MPs representing the minority races. This is the only way to ensure that. Whether it is the PAP or the Opposition party contesting in an election, they will have to field a multi-racial team in the GRC. A single-constituency system will not enable this to happen, no matter what some may think. Ms Sylvia Lim said that we introduced the NCMP system because of the PAP losing a constituency in Anson in 1981. I think she probably flatters the Workers’ Party for having such an influence.”
“Mr Zaqy Mohamad also asked about the difference in the intent behind the NCMP and the NMP schemes, and he and Mr Alvin Yeo were concerned whether Parliament will be less productive with the presence of NCMPs. Mr Yeo also asked whether increasing more NCMPs will make for a more broad diversity of views and better quality of debate. He thinks that it will simply lead to having more unelected Opposition members without really improving the diversity of views or the quality of debate. Well, the PAP has 81 PAP MPs. I do not think there is a lack of diversity of views, even though we may share the same goals, mission and platform, but sometimes we do have different views as well. So, having nine NCMPs, including elected Opposition members, is not a bad thing. I think it does give the Opposition, whether as NCMP or elected Opposition, a chance to articulate what they stand for, what policies they have, what programmes they have, that can make a better life for Singaporeans. And Singaporeans can better assess whether, indeed, these are the people worthy to become elected MPs in future elections. Otherwise, we will just be debating among ourselves – PAP members. And we know the sentiments of Singaporeans – they do want a strong and dependable government, but they also want to hear some Opposition voices, not just NMPs' voices, not just PAP Members who speak like Opposition. They want to see some real Opposition MPs in Parliament. So, the purpose of this NCMP scheme is to allow more of these Opposition members to come in, if we do not have enough Opposition members elected into Parliament. Mdm Ho is also concerned that the Opposition uses the NCMP scheme to band together and put forth causes or demands in an un-parliamentary manner.”
“But I will not rule out the possibility that we will increase the threshold after the next GE, depending on the outcome of the new NCMP scheme. Dr Lim Wee Kiak also suggested that the highest polling candidate who failed in his election bid, regardless of the party, be made an NCMP. In other words, he calls it non-partisan. Actually, the moment a candidate stands for election, he represents a political party, and he will be partisan. The purpose of the NCMP scheme is really to ensure the representation of a minimum number of Opposition members. It is not to increase the number of Government ruling party members to come into Parliament. For the ruling party, they already have the majority and I do not think we need more of them in this House. So the purpose of the NCMP scheme is really to make sure that the losing Opposition candidate has a chance to be in Parliament. And we say Opposition candidates because they represent a political platform. As for independent candidates, they are not eligible to be appointed even if they poll a high enough votes among the best losers to become NCMPs. Dr Lim also suggested having a one-man-two-vote system with a secondary vote for voters to decide whether a candidate deserves to be an NCMP. I think the current system is simple. People can understand it and the process for identifying an NCMP is easy enough to implement. To have different kinds of voting, multi-ballot for different purposes, will tend to confuse the public. I think we will keep this system as it is, not that we have not considered it. We have considered different ways of choosing people in Parliament, but we decided to have a simple system instead.”
“Mdm Ho is concerned that in the event that we have a large number of Opposition MPs already and that the ruling party has got a slim majority, whether we still need the nine NMPs. Well, the scenario underscores the importance and the need for selecting NMPs who are non-partisan and who will be able to provide an alternative view, in addition to the Opposition MPs or those of the Government. I believe Mdm Ho Geok Choo also asked for a residency period of 10 years be required before a nominee can be considered as an NMP of this House. I think there are already enough safeguards in the Constitution now as well as in the Parliamentary Elections Act for the candidacy in elections. In particular, the Constitution requires that a person has to be a resident in Singapore for at least 10 years before he or she can even be elected or nominated as a Member of Parliament. I believe I have dealt with the issue of NMPs. If not, Members can always bring this up again and I will be happy to clarify. On the subject of NCMPs, Mdm Ho Geok Choo is concerned that the scheme will allow the entry of non-credible candidates who lost their deposits. Let me assure her that this will not happen because, as I said, the Parliamentary Elections Act already requires an NCMP to at least hold 15% of the valid votes cast. This is, as noted by Dr Lim Wee Kiak, 2.5% above the votes required for the candidate not to lose his deposit. As suggested by Mr Zaqy Mohamad, there is already a minimum percentage of votes required of NCMPs to join this House. And both Members suggested that we should raise the threshold. I think the threshold for now, as we see it, is adequate.”
“Paulin Straughan also asked about the functional groups and how they are selected. Well, the groups that we have identified – there are six groups and we will add a seventh, which is the people group – are simply a means to systematically ensure that we reach out to different sectors of our society to find individuals who are keen, interested and able to contribute to the proceedings in this House. While there may be many avenues now for people to air their views, like Mdm Ho Geok Choo has suggested, writing letters to the Forum page, taking part in other kinds of forums to speak up or in REACH forums or feedback, etc, these are quite different from being in this House to take part in the debate on important issues affecting the nation. The number of nominees coming forward, actually, has been quite consistent. Let me just give Members some examples. In 2002, we had 33 nominations; in 2004, we had 37 nominations; in 2007, we had 48 nominations; and in 2009, we had 46 nominations. So, there has been a sustained interest among members of the public as well as those nominated by the functional groups. And I would say that most of the nominees came from members of the public at large and not from the functional groups. Assoc. Prof. Straughan, Mr Calvin Cheng and Mr Hri Kumar also asked that we know what each NMP stands for and who they represent. While NMPs may have certain issues that they want to raise or feel strongly about, they are not appointed to represent any functional groups. They are there because they have interesting views to present to Parliament and we think that some of these voices on important national issues should be allowed to be heard in Parliament. So, they represent themselves; they do not represent any functional groups.”
“So, there is no derogation of the rights of the person in custody. Now, on the issue of NMPs, there are questions raised about how NMPs are selected, the transparency of the selection, whether the NMP scheme is still relevant and, of course, there are also MPs who talked about the relevance and importance of NMPs in this House. The NMP scheme is clearly relevant and legitimate because it is provided for in the Constitution. We have debated this for a long time. We have had this system in the House for 20 years. NMPs have performed well and, at every term, there is no lack of individuals coming forward to be considered as NMPs. So, I think there is no need to further elaborate or document this because the process of appointing NMPs is clearly laid out in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution and the proceedings of the Special Select Committee are presented to this House after the Committee has recommended to the President to appoint the NMPs. And I believe the Special Select Committee on Nominations for NMP Appointment has done its job very rigorously, and it has been conscientious. I had been a member of the Special Select Committee for many terms and I can testify to that. Mr Low Thia Khiang has also been a member of that Special Select Committee and he knows how the process is conducted. I believe he too thinks that the system is rigorous enough and the criteria are quite clear. Ms Irene Ng wants to ensure that the quality of NMPs is not debased in future. Let me assure her that that will not be the case and perhaps, I will suggest to the Leader of the House to, in future, consider her also to be on the Special Select Committee. Then she could see how the NMP selection is done. Assoc. Prof.”
“The magistrate at first mention will simply hear the case against the person in custody and then decide whether the person should be further remanded. The period when the person is to be brought before the court is 48 hours. That will not change with video-conferencing. What will change is the way the person is presented to the magistrate. The proposal here is to have video-conferencing instead of bringing the person physically to the court. Is this very much different other than that the person presented in court, or in the Police Division via video conference? Well, let me assure Members that even if the person is presented to the magistrate in the Police Division via video conference, he will be in a separate room. There will be no police officer present, and he will be able to see the happenings in court, including the full visual of the court, of the public gallery, of the judge, of his defence lawyer, and of the prosecution. In other words, he can see virtually everybody. In fact, he will have a sharper view of everyone. And as for the judge, he too will have a very clear view of the person in custody as the screen in the court is 103 inches wide. So it is a big enough screen for the magistrate to see the full view of a person in custody or a partial view if the magistrate were to zoom in or zoom out on the person in custody. So, there is no question that the judge will not be able to see if a person in custody is under duress. He will be able to suss it out straightaway. There is no lack of opportunity for a person in custody to complain to the judge that he has been coerced. He can always raise the point when he is in the Police Division or he can make a complaint subsequently when he appears in court.”
“Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken up on the subjects of NCMP, NMP, video-conferencing and Citizenship Advisory Committee, and I will deal with each of them in reverse order. First, as "Mr Mah" speaking, I would like to talk about the Citizenship Advisory Committee (CAC). [Laughter.] Some people do mistake me to be Mr Mah. I hope they do not do that anymore after this. The CAC was set up in the 1950s –1957 to be precise – to deal with a very particular situation at that time when we did not have any concept of citizenship – no citizenship rights. But because we had to elect a Legislative Assembly, the Citizenship Bill was passed in order to register voters. To ensure that no one who had been in Singapore for some time, even though they might be migrants, would be denied the right to be voters, the Committee was set up to independently assess every rejection. But today after 50 years, I do not think we really need this anymore. Besides, the process of selection of approval of application for citizenship is quite rigorous. We have decided therefore to abolish the CAC. It does not mean that those who were rejected cannot appeal to the Minister. The avenue is still open and those who feel that they really deserve to be re-considered, by all means, appeal to the Minister. Next, on the subject of video-conferencing, Ms Sylvia Lim said that this is against the rights of the accused persons, and Mr Hri Kumar asked for clarifications on how to make sure that their rights are also protected. Let me start off by saying that when an accused person is brought before the court, he is under the close guard of the police officer in the dock.”
“The right to steer our social and political development as a sovereign country is not transferable and is non-negotiable. In short, Singapore politics is for citizens. For although we are a small country, Singaporeans are no less proud of our independence than the largest country in the world. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“It is therefore no longer necessary to send all rejection cases of foreigners applying for Singapore citizenship to a Citizenship Advisory Committee for review. In any case, our system for the grant of Singapore citizenship includes a rigorous process of evaluation. And even with the abolition of the Citizenship Advisory Committee, foreigners whose applications for Singapore citizenship are rejected by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) can still appeal to the Minister under section 3 of the Third Schedule of the Constitution. Clause 4 of this Bill therefore repeals section 18(2) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution and abolishes the Citizenship Advisory Committee. Clause 6 of this Bill provides that all applications for citizenship which are pending when the Advisory Committee is abolished need not be considered by the Advisory Committee. Sir, this Bill marks an important and another milestone in the constant and progressive evolution of our political system of parliamentary democracy. Henceforth, Opposition and non-Government voices will be expanded and entrenched in this House. We will have the opportunity to hear from a greater diversity of views in this House including the views and opinions of a larger number of Opposition members. And, as this House considers these significant changes, I would like to end with this comment. We live in a globalised world and we are not immune to developments and pressures outside our country. But we must always be true to ourselves. When we develop and evolve our political system, we must never forget certain important fundamentals. One such fundamental is that whatever changes we make must be reflective of what we, as citizens, want for our country, based on what will work for Singapore.”
“The Minister shall then have regard to any report made to him by the Committee before deciding whether to reject the application. Sir, the Citizenship Advisory Committee was introduced via the Singapore Citizenship Bill, more than 50 years ago, in 1957. There was no concept of Singapore Citizenship prior to that. After the Constitutional talks that resulted in Singapore becoming self-governing, the Singapore Citizenship Bill was introduced to provide for the granting of Singapore Citizenship to eligible persons so that they could vote in the Legislative Assembly elections. Many long-term residents were migrants from China, India and the Malay Archipelago and were called "aliens" at that time. Those who were born in Singapore were called "British subjects". Most of both groups were eligible to be registered as Singapore citizens and become voters. A Citizenship Advisory Committee was then set up to ensure that eligible persons who were qualified to become citizens under the law would not be unfairly excluded especially in view of the impending General Elections for the Legislative Assembly. Sir, the concern that migrant residents who have lived in Singapore for many years might be denied their rights to become Singapore citizens is no longer relevant today. Today’s context is very different from the late 1950s. Singapore became self-governing in 1959 and gained Independence in 1965, 45 years ago. We no longer have the issue of local domiciles. The applications for Singapore citizenship that we receive today are from foreigners who want to make Singapore their home. The granting of citizenship to foreigners is a privilege. Singapore citizenship is not an entitlement or a right for a foreign resident.”
“Clause 2 of this Bill amends Article 9(4) of the Constitution to enable an arrested person to be produced for First Mentions before the Magistrate either physically or by way of video-conferencing link or other similar technology. Sir, I would like to emphasise here that there will be safeguards to ensure that the use of video-conferencing does not affect the fundamental liberty of the arrested person. What has changed is just the mode of producing the arrested person before the Magistrate. First, the arrested person will still be detained for not more than 48 hours unless the Court makes an order for his further detention. Second, the Court will retain the discretion to call for the arrested person or consider the application of the arrested person to be physically produced in Court at any time before or during the First Mentions. Third, certain groups such as juveniles, by virtue of their age, will continue to be produced in Court in person. Fourth, video-conferencing will not be used for accepting pleas or sentencing. However, in time to come, I do not rule out the possibility that video-conferencing would be expanded to include such hearings as has been done in other countries. Citizenship Advisory Committee I will now touch on the final amendment introduced in this Bill – the abolition of the Citizenship Advisory Committee. Currently, the Constitution provides for a Citizenship Advisory Committee formed by three persons to be appointed by the President. The Minister shall refer all citizenship applications identified for refusal to this Committee. The Committee shall review all of these cases to confirm that the grounds for refusal are reasonable and the cases have been fairly assessed.”
“Today, video-conferencing technology has advanced considerably and video-conferencing usage for criminal proceedings, including First Mentions, has been introduced in overseas jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Australia, UK and some states in the United States. In Singapore, video-conferencing has also been used in Court proceedings for some time now. Singapore’s Subordinate Courts first used video-conferencing with Prisons for criminal mentions in 1996. Since then, the Subordinate Courts, Prisons and the Attorney-General’s Chambers have gradually expanded the use of video-conferencing to cover pre-trial processes such as further mentions, bail reviews, and represented and unrepresented pre-trial conferences. There are several benefits in expanding the usage of video-conferencing to First Mentions. First, there will be a reduction in security risk as movement of arrested persons will be minimised. In addition, there will be a reduction in the multiple handing over and taking over of arrested persons from one officer to another during the process. This will enhance the management and security of the arrested person and will also lead to more efficient use of limited manpower resources. Second, in the case of medical emergencies, such as when the arrested person is hospitalised, field magistrates are currently sent to hospitals for First Mentions to be carried out. With the use of video-conferencing and the proposed set up of a centralised secured ward at Changi General Hospital, First Mentions and also further mentions can henceforth be conducted by the Magistrates via video-conferencing from the Courts without the need to deploy field magistrates.”
“Past and present NMPs have played valuable roles in enriching the debate and discussion on national issues. As such, clause 5 of this Bill abolishes the requirement for a resolution to be passed by the Parliament before NMPs may be appointed. This will entrench the NMP scheme as a staple feature of all future Parliaments and not a matter to be determined by each new Parliament. NMPs can now be appointed any time within six months after the Parliament first sits following a General Election. Other amendments to the Constitution Sir, there are two non-election related amendments which I will now speak on. First, we propose to allow arrested persons to be brought before a Magistrate for First Mention through video-conferencing, in addition to the current physical production of an arrested person before a Magistrate. Second, we propose to abolish the Citizenship Advisory Committee. This Committee reviews all cases where applications for Singapore Citizenship have been rejected. Video-conferencing for First Mentions Sir, the Constitution currently requires a person to be brought before a Magistrate within 48 hours of arrest and that he shall not be further detained without the Magistrate’s authority. This is meant to allow the Magistrate to verify his identity and ensure the protection of his fundamental liberties. The Constitution requires that the person be physically produced in front of the Magistrate for First Mentions within 48 hours excluding the time of any necessary journey. This requirement has its roots in the Constitution of Malaysia, and was instituted at a time when video-conferencing technology was not available.”
“But let me also say that as a Party, the PAP treats parliamentary elections very seriously and we will therefore field our best candidates and will continue to contest each and every parliamentary seat robustly to win. Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) Sir, let me now turn to the NMP scheme. The Constitution currently provides for up to nine NMPs. After each General Election, Parliament has to decide whether to pass a motion that there shall be NMPs during the term of that Parliament. If Parliament so resolves, then a Special Select Committee of Parliament will invite the public to submit names of persons who may be considered for nomination by the Committee. From the nominations received, the Special Select Committee will then nominate nine persons for appointment by the President. These persons nominated come from diverse backgrounds and bring to Parliament valuable views drawn from their expertise and experiences. NMPs have been given the same rights as NCMPs to allow them to participate meaningfully in the parliamentary process. The NMP scheme was first approved in Parliament in 1990 and the number of NMPs was increased from six to nine in . We have extensively debated the merits of the NMP scheme in this House. This scheme has worked well in providing non-partisan alternative views. When we first instituted the NMP scheme, then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said that each Parliament will be given the discretion to decide if it wished to have NMPs for the term of that Parliament. This safeguard was introduced because the scheme was new and it was uncertain whether the scheme will work. Twenty years have passed. I believe that the NMP scheme has become an accepted feature in this House.”
“The Workers’ Party rejected the NCMP seat for its candidate in the 1984 General Election after the scheme was approved by Parliament before the General Election. But since 1988, there have been four NCMPs in Parliament – Dr Lee Siew Choh and Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, both from the Workers’ Party, Mr Steve Chia of the Singapore Democratic Alliance and Ms Sylvia Lim also of the Workers’ Party. Together with other Opposition Members, they have participated and contributed in their own way to parliamentary debates. Clause 3 of the Amendment Bill, therefore, amends Article 39(1) of the Constitution to increase the maximum number of NCMPs in Parliament from six to nine, similar to the number of Nominated MPs. Coupled with changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act, there will be a minimum of nine Opposition Members in the House at any one time, whether directly elected or via the NCMP route subject to the Opposition candidate or candidates winning at least 15% of the total number of valid votes polled. Therefore, regardless of the electoral outcome, the Opposition will be a fixed and significant feature of this House. As to whether they can increase their membership in Parliament beyond what is provided for in future, it will ultimately depend on whether they can convince Singaporeans that their policies and programmes will benefit Singaporeans more than those put forth by the ruling Party. The NCMP scheme gives them access to Parliament to try and do so. The NCMP scheme is unique to Singapore as no ruling Party in any other country has created a scheme to allow the losing Opposition candidates into Parliament. We have done so because, as a Government, we think that this is a good thing that is in Singapore’s interests.”
“The Parliamentary Elections Act prescribes that the number of NCMPs shall be three, or such greater number not exceeding six that the President may, by order, specify for the purpose of that General Election after the dissolution of Parliament and not later than the day of nomination, less the number of elected Opposition MPs. NCMPs are provided with most of the rights, privileges and duties of elected MPs. They can participate fully in parliamentary debates, raise motions, ask questions in Parliament and even vote on most Bills. They are, thus, provided with the opportunity to propagate their parties’ programmes and positions. However, as un-elected Members, they cannot vote on a Bill to amend the Constitution, a Supply, Supplementary or Final Supply Bill, a Money Bill, a vote of no confidence in the Government or a motion for the removal of the President from office. These powers will remain the privileges of an elected MP. The NCMP scheme was introduced in 1984 to ensure that the Parliament has at least a few Opposition Members, even if the electorate returned only candidates from the ruling party to Parliament. Three benefits were highlighted then. The first was to provide PAP Ministers and MPs with the experience of the cut and thrust of debate by sparring with Opposition Members. The second benefit was to allow the electorate to judge for themselves what elected Opposition Members can and cannot do for the people. The third was to dispel any suspicions of cover-ups, since Opposition MPs would give vent to any allegation of misfeasance or corruption or nepotism, even if these proved false and allowed the Government to rebut them. The NCMP scheme has fulfilled its intended purposes. It has ensured the presence of Opposition Members in Parliament.”
“This is not just a political fashion. It is an evolution which the Government has consistently and progressively fostered. As the world we live in grows more complex and dynamic, it is vital that we maximise ideas and knowledge by engaging a greater diversity of views. Parliament is the best place to develop this. It is the highest decision making body in the land. It is the right forum to have a responsible free exchange of views and representation of interests on the record and accountably and ultimately to take an informed collective decision which will be legitimate and accepted by Singaporeans. To provide for this, the Government made changes to the political system with the introduction of the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMP) scheme in 1984 and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMP) scheme in 1990. The results of General Elections since then have consistently shown that the majority of Singaporeans continue to desire and support a strong and dependable Government. However, recognising that Singaporeans also desire to hear more diverse views in Parliament and, indeed, the value of engaging comprehensive perspectives to help sharpen or refine policy formulation, the Government has decided to expand and entrench the NCMP and NMP schemes further. Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMP) Let me now focus on the NCMP scheme. The Constitution currently provides for up to six NCMPs to ensure a minimum Opposition representation in Parliament.”
“This is how the Government secures the legal and moral authority as well as the political legitimacy to govern and lead the country, implementing policies and programmes for the betterment of our people. The ballot box is the ultimate way by which the people exercise their right to choose who they want to represent them and to govern and lead Singapore for the next five years. Our political system has worked well because the PAP Government has regularly reviewed and updated our framework and laws to advance our political development in tandem with societal changes. An example of this is the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. In the 1970s and early 1980s, when there was increasing evidence of voting patterns along ethnic lines, the Government, after a long debate, decided to introduce the GRC system. GRCs encourage political parties to take a multi-racial perspective, and ensures that our ethnic minorities will always be represented in Parliament regardless of who wins the election. As we mature as a society and our citizens become better educated and informed, we see a growing desire among Singaporeans to follow and express views on important national matters. Singaporeans are keen to be engaged more on issues affecting their lives and future but they also want themselves and their children to continue enjoying stability, security, order and communal harmony. Finding the dynamic and changing balance between these aspirations and interests is a challenge for both the Government and the people. But it is a challenge that we will not ignore and will continue to seek to address in a wise and practical manner. A corollary of this desire for more engagement is a desire to see greater diversity of views on issues discussed and debated in Parliament.”
“Good governance, in our view and experience, requires a political system which, on the one hand, fosters political stability by representing the varied interests of an ethnically plural society and, on the other hand, enables whichever party that forms the Government to make well-considered decisions and implement them effectively for the national good. This gives us the strength and discipline for long-term and strategic planning as well as the nimbleness and responsiveness that has enabled Singapore to prosper and progress since independence. Parliament, in our political system, therefore allows the expression of diverse independent views and the representation of constituent interests and concerns. However, these should augment and not undermine the role of the Parliament to act decisively – for its Members to decide on issues and policies, balancing all relevant considerations and after hearing and debating all relevant points of view. Singapore's political system has produced political stability, prosperity and a high quality of life for citizens since independence. This is clear to both Singaporeans and external observers. For instance, the IMD World Competitiveness Report has, since 2005, consistently ranked Singapore among the three most competitive countries in the world. We have also been ranked highly by the World Economic Forum, the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) and Mercer Consulting, among others. Investors also rate highly the political stability of Singapore and continue to invest in us because of their confidence in the Government. Sir, in our political system, the Government has to renew its mandate from the people at least once every five years through free and fair elections.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 2010 seeks to amend the Constitution in three areas. First, to introduce refinements to the framework for Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). Second, to allow for arrested persons to be produced before magistrates for First Mentions via video-conferencing. Third, to abolish the Citizenship Advisory Committee. I will go through each in turn. Refinements to NCMP and NMP system Sir, in May last year, the Prime Minister announced changes to our electoral system. Of these changes, the refinements to the NCMP and NMP systems will require amendments to the Constitution. The changes to the NCMP system will also require amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act, which will be moved by the Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs later. Rationale behind the refinements Let me first set out the context for the specific amendments. Sir, like many Commonwealth countries, Singapore’s political system was modelled after the British Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. One of the key features of such a system is a legislature elected by voters through first-past-the-post contests and the appointment of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet from among the elected Members of Parliament. As we have matured and grown as a sovereign independent country, so too has our political system evolved to meet the changing needs of our society. The objective, however, remains unchanged from the day we achieved independence – that is to have good governance for the well-being and betterment of all our people, regardless of race, language, religion or social class.”
“If you look at the drug situation way back in the 1990s and compare it with what it is today, it was a vastly different picture at that time. And I think Members would know that by just looking at the trend, we have more or less dealt with the heroin problem compared to the serious heroin problem that we had in the 1990s. In those days, heroin addiction was almost 95% of the drug addicts arrested. Today, is is about 40-odd per cent. Is this 40% low enough? Well, we have to look at the number of people who were arrested for drug addiction, and the number has gone down drastically. Despite all the efforts that we have, including the intelligence, surveillance, arrests, etc, there will still be people who want to take drugs, and they have to watch out that they do not get caught. If they do, they will have to pay a price.”
“Sir, may I just add to what my colleague, Prof. Ho, has said? I want to thank Ms Sylvia Lim for being so concerned and interested about the drug abuse problem and also about those who continue to commit drug offences, even though they have been given many opportunities. I think the point here for all drug addicts to note is that they will be given a second chance. In fact, they will be given even a third chance. For a person who has taken the drugs under the scheduled list and they are arrested, they will go to the drug rehabilitation centre. When they leave, and if they are arrested again, they will go again to the drug rehabilitation centre. But we find that just by bringing them through the revolving door and keep sending them back to the drug rehabilitation centre, it does not work. More than 10 years ago, we decided that for those who are given two chances, by the third strike, they will be considered "out". They will have to go to prison. That is why we have structured the LT1 and LT2 programmes for them. For those who cannot kick off the drug habit, the best place for them to be really, is in the prison. Because, if they continue to take drugs, they must find a way to satisfy that addiction. And what will they do? Many of them will commit crimes. And as the data have shown, three-quarters of them have got a criminal record. For those who want to change – the issue is really up to them – we will do everything possible, including working with community organisations, working with their families and helping them get a job. But if they do not want to change, there is really nothing much we can do; and they will continue to go to prison. I think that sets the context in which we look at the drug problem.”
“Sir, we received intelligence from our liaison partners about a possible plot to go and attack vessels coming through Singapore waters and through the Straits of Malacca. As a result, the various security agencies have been working very closely with one another, including the RSN and also our foreign liaison partners. We have also worked very closely with the shipping community. And as you would have noted, the Singapore Shipping Association has put up an alert to all their members. Basically, all alert levels have been raised, not just for ships plying at sea but also for the security measures we have undertaken in Singapore.”
“Should the Government go further and criminalise more irresponsible Internet behaviour? In France, it is an offence for anyone to broadcast images of certain classes of violent crimes, including severe beatings or rape. While Singapore does not have such a law, we will monitor developments and review our practices and laws where necessary. Ultimately, the Internet cannot be a place where the law is suspended. There has to be accountability for actions on the Internet as well as in the physical world.”
“At the core is the policy that the Government of Singapore is secular and that the secular law is supreme. This ensures that all races and religions are given equal protection under the law. 12.30 pm Despite this, we occasionally face incidents of conflict and tension, as pointed out by Dr Ong. Ethnic and religious diversity pose some challenges to social order as different groups pursue their interests, sometime over enthusiastically and passionately. Our approach towards resolving such disagreements is that they should be mediated or resolved on the ground through common sense and moral suasion using the collective efforts of the community, grassroots and religious leaders. However, there may be times when such efforts are not enough. In such instances, the authorities will step in to deal with the problem, and I do not think that anyone doubts the will and resolve of the Government to deal with these issues effectively and quickly. Dr Ong suggested sending out a stronger and clearer signal for every breach. Ideally, such action by the authorities should be few and far between. The long-term solution to religious disputes must reside in mutual understanding and trust among the different groups and their leaders. Dr Ong's suggestion that religious clerics undergo a course on religious harmony is really a matter for MCYS to consider. I will end by addressing the issue raised by Dr Maliki about irresponsible Internet behaviour. The Government has generally taken a light touch approach on regulating the Internet. However, we do take a serious view of those who take advantage of the anonymity offered by the Internet to do harm to others or to the community. We will not hesitate to take action in such cases.”
“Policy has to be based on the norm rather than the exception. Let me deal with Ms Ng's second point on ensuring a level playing field for all citizens regardless of race, language or religion. I agree entirely. I said earlier that, as a society, we can in fact be stronger if we celebrate our diversity and draw strength from that diversity. It will however not be possible to draw such strength if any ethnic group is discriminated against. Our pledge sets out what our ideals are. As a Government and as a society, we have striven to achieve those ideals. Nevertheless, in a society like ours, from time to time, there will be perceptions of discrimination as well as actual cases where discrimination occurs. That happens in every multi-ethnic society. And discrimination on some differential basis occurs in every society. That is the reality of social organisation. The key is that our Government and public institutions, as a matter of public policy, do not tolerate such discrimination. We do our best to ensure a level playing field based on meritocracy. By and large, we have been successful, though in issues like this, it is always work in progress. We have a society whose fundamental tenet is meritocracy and all ethnic groups have made substantial progress. We have a good foundation for our society to move further forward to achieve the vision in our pledge. Let me now move on to religious harmony. Dr Ong Seh Hong spoke about the need for religious tolerance and harmony. Singapore's peaceful communal relations are the result of the careful management of relations between the various racial and religious groups by the Government and the commitment of our people to the ideals and value of communal harmony.”
“Our people are heirs with several cultures which have long, proud and rich traditions, stretched over thousands of years. Ethnicity and culture identity, and identification along those lines, are not going to disappear by doing away with it in our NRIC or providing an option for people to avoid stating their ethnicity. The example of France and many other countries tells us that. Indeed, in the Singapore context, there is much to be said for openly accepting our ethnic differences and celebrating our ethnic and cultural diversity. That diversity can be melted into great strength if properly handled – witness our ability to span across Asia and take part in the rise of China, India and parts of Southeast Asia. However, we must not lose sight of one basic fundamental ideal which really underlines Ms Ng's point. While we acknowledge our different ethnicities and cultures, underlying this is the ideal that they are all Singaporeans first and foremost – this has to be the foundation for our society. We will support each other and fight for each other. The Singaporean national identity has to be nurtured and strengthened into a powerful unifying force. The Singaporean identity has to be made stronger than the individual ethnic identities. But that ideal is not going to be achieved by us ignoring our ethnic diversity, nor would our ethnic diversity go away because we do not reflect it in our NRICs. Even in countries with highly egalitarian ideas, with far longer history than ours, race still continues to be a central tenet and fact of society. It does not go away easily, even over hundreds of years. Thus, it is best to be pragmatic and realistic while not losing sight of achievable ideals. While race does not always equate to culture, it most often does.”
“Being iconic, the IRs are potential targets for terrorists. We are also mindful, given the experience of other jurisdictions, that the casinos may attract criminal elements including organised crime, vice, moneylaundering and loansharking. We have from the outset built capabilities to deal with multi-faceted threats. The Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) was set up in April 2008. The Casino Crime Investigation Branch (CCIB) was set up to deal specifically with casino-related crime. The new Marina Bay NPC and Bukit Merah West NPC will oversee general law and order at the Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) respectively. With regard to vice activities which Mr de Souza asked about, the Police has increased the number of officers available to deal with vice. Police Land Division officers have been vested with the same powers as those from CID to curb vice-related activities. Since the casinos started operations, the law and order situation has generally remained under control. It is early days yet but we will monitor the situation closely. As for the issue of problem gambling, that is under MCYS' purview. I will now turn to Ms Irene Ng's question which can be broken down into two distinct points. One, that there should be a new category of 'Singaporean' in the 'race' field of the NRIC. And two, we should ensure a level playing field for all citizens regardless of race, language or religion. I will now respond to each of her points. First, the idea that there should be a new category of 'Singaporean', for those who prefer to state that, rather than ethnic identity. An idea like this has to be realistic, acceptable to the majority, and capable of being implemented effectively. The reality is that ours is a multi-ethnic society.”
“That comment has to be seen in context. In 2009-2010, the Home Team saw significant increases to establishment for Police (1,315 or 11%), ICA (1,275 or 33%), CNB (64 or 10%) and SCDF (205 or 10%). Moving forward, we are looking to increase ICA manpower at the checkpoints and staffing a new cruise terminal. For SCDF, we will have a new fire station for Tuas View and a new Fire Post at Sentosa. More manpower will also be allocated for frontline policing and key operational roles like investigation and intelligence. There is a limit to how much additional resources can be pumped in to the Home Team. However, there are pressures, like an expanding population, as pointed out by Mr de Souza, an increase in mega events and a more complex security environment. Thus, as I had shared in last year's COS debate, it is important for us to deal with these constraints in a holistic manner. First, there must be force multipliers, like technology, to maximise the utility of limited resources. Second, we should partner the private sector to augment the security force and also free up Home Team officers to perform more critical functions. Third, we need to forge deep and meaningful collaborations with community partners. The long-term solution cannot be to continue growing the size of the Home Team indefinitely. Instead, our resources must be allocated to areas that best optimise their training capabilities. And this must be to combat crime and not to do pest control like catching snakes. On the IRs, Mr de Souza, Mr Arthur Fong, Mr Ang Mong Seng and Dr Ong Seh Hong were concerned about issues relating to vice, loansharking and other social menaces. We have been focusing on the different potential threats faced and beyond issues relating to regulating the casinos.”
“Here, we have very good work being done in the countering of extremist and terrorist ideology. The persisting threat of self-radicalisation makes these efforts even more critical today. In this regard, I commend the efforts of our various local Muslim groups and scholars and the Religious Rehabilitation Group. Understanding the vulnerability of the young and that their medium of choice is often the Internet, many of these Islamic scholars are working through their websites and blogs to counter the toxic influence of extremist ideology propagated through the Internet. I assure Members that we will do everything reasonable and practicable to prevent a terrorist incident and to mitigate its consequences, especially on our communal harmony and social cohesion, if it occurs. It is important therefore that Singaporeans play their part and continue to strive to be vigilant and prepared, and to nurture the bonds of trust within our community. Ultimately, however, Sir, we need to be always realistic and balanced when we deal with security. On the one hand, we should not be in denial. The threat is real and we are not immune from it. On the other hand, we must recognise that no security system can be completely foolproof. Risk-based judgments and trade-offs must be made at all times. Life must go on despite the continuing threat of terrorism. The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I will deal with the questions raised on Home Team resources, law and order at the Integrated Resorts (IRs), race classification, maintaining religious harmony and irresponsible Internet behaviour. I agree with Mr Alvin Yeo's speech that we cannot neglect Homeland security. Mr Yeo observed little or no manpower increases in the Home Team this coming year.”
“The Home Team engaged the IRs from the design stage to ensure that the safety and security requirements are addressed. We have also enhanced our response capacity for the IRs – for instance, the Marina Bay Neighbourhood Police Centre is already operational and the Fire Station will be operational next year. Ensuring public vigilance and crisis preparedness of the community - a matter raised by Mr de Souza and Mr Arthur Fong – is a continuing effort of the Home Team. As Mr de Souza also mentioned, complacency of Singaporeans is always a concern. The more we are free from a terrorist incident or even a natural disaster, the more people are inclined to take security for granted. Be that as it may, we must persist with efforts to enhance crisis awareness and contingency preparedness at all levels. I would urge Singaporeans not to be complacent and to take their security and safety for granted. They must do their part. Last July, we conducted Exercise Northstar VII. This involved Government agencies, the private sector and the community. In August last year, we launched a workshop series on crisis management. The first workshop was customised for senior security executives in the hotel industry. We will be conducting further workshops later this year to reach out to other corporate sector partners. At the level of the general public, we have been developing the Community Engagement Programme (CEP). Now in its fourth year, the CEP has reached more groups than ever. The constituencies' CEP-Ready certification programme, for instance, has seen the development of baseline crisis response capabilities in almost every constituency. Mr de Souza asked how we can stop terrorist ideology from infecting our community.”
“Singaporeans need to play their part by being our eyes and ears on the ground and reporting any suspicious happenings that they see. Indeed, individuals in any potentially targeted domain have local knowledge and instincts which are useful to tap on and are of a security value. If they can be trained and sensitised to look out for potential security risks, they will expand the community of security vigilance in our domain. By involving the community, we are also educating and preparing Singaporeans against a terrorist attack, which Mr Hri Kumar has correctly pointed out is key. In line with this approach, we have piloted over the last year an initiative called Threat-Oriented Passenger Screening Integrated System (TOPSIS). This initiative involves the Home Team working in an integrated manner with frontline officers and the stakeholder entities at each of these checkpoints to better identify and respond to suspicious individuals. For instance, the non-security communities such as the airport check-in counter staff are trained to assist security agencies to identify suspicious passengers. Such an approach is not new. We have always emphasised how important it is to mobilise our public to be vigilant and prepared. Hence, we have always sought to work closely with our public and private sector partners. Whether it is for high profile events like the coming Singapore Youth Olympic Games, or protecting critical infrastructure or private developments such as the IRs, the best way to balance security with other important considerations is to factor in security considerations from the outset in the planning for these events and developments. This was indeed the approach that we took with the IR which Mr Arthur Fong asked about.”
“The Mumbai incident which saw the terrorists covertly entering the city by the sea tells us clearly that such an assumption could make us dangerously blinkered. 12.15 pm The Police Coast Guard (PCG) works very closely with the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) to have an integrated picture of the maritime domain. The PCG has also started to renew its fleet to enhance its detection and interception capabilities. In recent months, the PCG has achieved several successes against smuggling syndicates. This underscores its ability to prevent intrusion through our coastline. We will not tolerate any sea-borne threat to our domestic security. If an intruding vessel refuses to stop despite repeated instructions to do so, the PCG will shoot at the engine of non-compliant vessels to stop them at sea. Such disabling fire will be employed only when absolutely necessary, and the Police's response will be proportional to the threat posed. Safeguards are in place to ensure that the responsible use of force is being complied with. The PCG officers have undergone intensive proficiency training and will appraise the ground conditions carefully before employing disabling fire. Disabling fire will not be employed if there are any reasonable risks to innocent vessels or persons. Sir, we are constantly seeking out new technologies to strengthen our borders security. At our Tuas Checkpoint, for instance, we have developed a facility for our frontline officers to test and detect suspicious chemical, biological, radiological or explosive substances. Ultimately, however, our most important asset in security is still our people. Public vigilance is key to deterring terror cells from taking root in our community, a concern raised by Mr de Souza.”
“The intent of terror groups to stage violent attacks has not diminished, even if the opportunities to do so, especially for mega attacks, are fewer than before because of a general hardening of potential targets by the authorities. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the steps to make Singapore and Southeast Asia safer. The most critical factor in enhancing the security of the region and, therefore, Singapore is strong intelligence and operational cooperation between our security and intelligence agencies and their regional and international counterparts. Intelligence shared between the countries has helped in the prevention of attacks and in the arrests of terrorists. We have also deployed Police liaison officers in Jakarta and Manila to facilitate cooperation and timely intelligence exchanges with these two countries. Sir, border security is another key line of defence. Mr Hri Kumar asked whether the security measures at our checkpoints are at pace with new terrorist threats and methods. We have established a range of physical security measures at all our checkpoints and regularly review these measures. For instance, checks at our airports were immediately stepped up after the foiled Christmas Day attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Detroit. But being an island, our borders are porous. Those determined to sneak into or out of Singapore may sometimes succeed. Our border security is about more than just our checkpoints. Maritime security, therefore, is something we must continue to pay attention to. Given the current security climate, we cannot assume that an intrusion is criminal and is not terrorist related.”
“I thank the Members who have spoken on the MHA issues and for giving me and my colleagues the opportunity to address them. Sir, the threat of terrorism remains real in our region, and so it remains real for Singapore too. We are an open society and we cannot insulate ourselves from the situation in our region or other parts of the world. Mr Alvin Yeo is right to point out that the threat of terrorism remains. This is notwithstanding the slew of arrests by regional authorities which Mr Christopher de Souza has noted. Indeed, despite such successes, the terrorist threat, which Mr de Souza and Mr Hri Kumar talked about, remains significant. Firstly, this is because the appeal of extremist and terrorist ideology is still very much alive. While the majority of people reject it, terrorism remains, and it needs only a handful as its vanguard. Therefore, so long as radicalisation and self-radicalisation of individuals continue to occur, terror groups remain capable of recouping their losses with new recruits. In Indonesia, for example, the death of Noordin Top has not discouraged those he had recruited from continuing with their terrorist acts. More recently, the arrest in Malaysia of 10 terror suspects, which included individuals from Yemen, Nigeria, Jordon and Syria, are a reminder of our vulnerability to terrorist threats coming from beyond the region. Secondly, terrorist trade-craft and methods are evolving even as security systems improve. Whether it is liquid bomb or binary bomb created to defeat detection technologies or explosives in shoes or underwear, we continue to see the creative determination of terrorists to circumvent security defences.”
“Madam, I beg to move that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2010/2011, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Madam, Mr Viswa Sadasivan is not here. We have made good progress. May I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.”
“As to whether more explanation can be given by the Boundaries Committee Report, I think we will wait and see, because I cannot prejudge or presume what the Boundaries Committee will decide.”
“Ms Lim is indeed correct to say that there will be constitutional changes in the light of the Prime Minister's announcement last May. We are going to see fewer six-person GRCs. On average, there will be five-person GRCs and there will be at least 12 single constituencies. Arising from the changes, the Constitution will be amended. The Prime Minister also said we are going to have more NCMPs. Right now, the Constitution says six and before the nomination, Prime Minister will, after the writ, state the maximum number of Opposition and NCMPs to be returned to Parliament. Right now it is six, and three are returned to Parliament, including the NCMPs. For our future Parliament, the Prime Minister has said that there would be nine NCMPs, including elected MPs. Total Opposition is nine. If indeed two Opposition Members are elected, there will be seven other NCMPs. For that, we need to make a constitutional change. As for the single constituency provision, I think, the law will remain. Same thing for the size of the GRC, the law will remain. The constitutional amendments will be tabled at the end of this Budget debate. And because of these proposed changes, I would believe that the next Electoral Boundaries Committee will have to do a review of the existing boundaries in order to give effect to what the Prime Minister has announced. So does it mean that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee cannot be appointed before the constitutional change? Well, between now and the end of Budget, I am not aware of any Committee being appointed. So I can safely tell her that the Committee has not been appointed yet. It would only be appointed after the constitutional change.”
“I have not seen any yet because no Committee has been appointed so far and I do not know what will go into the terms of reference, whether it includes some of the issues that the Member talked about. But, generally, the Committee will look at population shifts, population changes, and then decide on where each of the constituencies will be, including the parts that need to be redrawn. Why some are changed and why some are notchanged, I think much depends on the configuration at the time. And that is very much left to the discretion of the Committee. The 30% variation used by the Committee in deciding the size of a constituency is a practice that has been carried out for the last 30 years. Before that, the number was smaller but the Committee needs to have a certain way and a certain principle of guiding themselves on determining the size of the constituency. So in the last 30 years or so, each of the Committees has adopted the 30% variation.”
“Sir, the law allows the Prime Minister to call a General Election (GE) any time and there is no legal requirement that the electoral boundaries be revised ahead of a GE. The Prime Minister also has full discretion in determining the number and boundaries of Electoral Divisions. But it has been the practice of the Prime Minister to appoint the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee to look at the boundaries whenever he thinks it is necessary. And based on past experience, he has always appointed the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) before every General Election. The Committee usually takes between two and four months to complete the review. Once that report is completed and the Prime Minister has accepted it, he will present it to Parliament without delay. As to whether the report will be released way ahead of the next GE or six to 12 months ahead of the GE, much depends on when the Prime Minister calls for the Election. I believe he will give all interested candidates and parties as much time as possible. But the timing of the release of the report, and the timing of the calling of Election may not be very certain because the Committee needs to complete the report and if the Prime Minister, at his own discretion, thinks that that is the right time to call an Election, he may call for an Election. But I can assure the Member that he would give sufficient time to Members and interested parties to look at the constituency changes. 4.45 pm The appointment of the EBRC is not mandated by law. But the Committee's work is guided by the terms of reference given by the Prime Minister.”
“We must continue to allow in good-calibre foreigners as citizens, and not just maintain a large number of permanent residents who are contented with the status quo and have no intention to convert. We have already widened the differences in benefits received by citizens and PRs to incentivise more PRs to take up citizenship. On the other hand, the Government will continue to put in efforts to promote social integration so that new immigrants will be able to integrate into the society earlier. With this new force of new citizens, we will be able to maintain a sustainable population and safeguard our future. We are all descendants of immigrants to whom we owe for Singapore's prosperity. The new immigrants today will sink their roots in Singapore and their children and grandchildren will be future citizens who will continue to fight for Singapore. *Cols. 3031-3032. Electoral Boundaries Review Committee Report”
“However, differences in lifestyle and habits are now making some people uncomfortable. The Government has stepped up the effort to educate the foreign workers so that they can better understand Singapore's social norms. We must transform our economy in tandem with the change of the outside world. We have taken the suggestions put forward by the Economic Strategies Committee to help companies increase productivity and slow down the pace of importing foreign workers into the workforce. The second category of foreigners are those who want to sink roots and become PRs and citizens eventually. Overall, the number of new citizens has remained stable. Due to the economic situation, we have seen more PRs since 2005. The Government will calibrate the number and pace of immigration to ensure that those who become one of us are of better quality, and not only contribute to Singapore economically but also integrate well into our society. From the fourth quarter of last year, we have already tightened the framework. Going forward, we will further tighten the framework to raise the quality of the immigrants. This will reduce the number of PRs granted. As for new citizens, provided that they meet the quality criteria, we should take up to 20,000 a year. Given our low fertility, if we do not bring in immigrants, Singapore's resident population will start to shrink by 2025. With an aging population, we will bear tremendous social burdens. We need 60,000 babies a year to replace our resident population, but we only have about 37,000 babies a year. I do not see a significant rebound in fertility happening. We must bring in 20,000 new citizens every year to keep our citizen core.”
“This is not easy to do but it is necessary to do, if Singaporeans are to be assured of a future and a quality of life, no less than what we enjoy today. Sir, we are all descendants of immigrants. Singapore grew and prospered since its founding because our great-grandfathers, grandfathers, fathers or parents – I must say actually grandparents, great-grandparents, otherwise the women will take offence – were allowed to come and settle to make a better life and in the process, to contribute to Singapore's growth. Had they been denied the opportunity to do so at the right time, we would not be born here and Singapore would not be what it is today. In future, the children and the grandchildren of today's immigrants who sink roots here, will grow up with our children and grandchildren. Together, they will be the next generation of Singaporeans and Singapore will be their home, just as much as it is our home today. Mr Chairman, Sir, Singaporeans' concerns over the immigration policy are widely reported in the Chinese media. So please permit me to say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Immigration policies have been widely reported in the Chinese media. Here, I will use Mandarin to say a few words. First of all, there are two types of foreigners living in Singapore. The transient group comprises workers who come to Singapore to work and when they finish their contracts, they will return to their own countries. In the past 10 years, the increased number of foreign workers has been associated with our economic growth. Many Singaporeans do understand that these foreign workers have made substantial contributions to our economy.”
“Sir, in a nutshell, we need 60,000 babies just to replace our resident population. But we only have about 37,000 babies per year. That is provided the number does not go down again in future. This is why I mentioned that we need about 20,000 new citizens in order to keep our citizen core. Unless there is a dramatic reversal of our local TFR, and I do not see this happening, it is critical that we must tap on immigration as a measured means to augment our population. We must continue to allow in good-calibre foreigners as PRs and SCs to supplement our low birth rates. However, our society needs a strong citizen core. Singaporeans must always form the bulk of our resident population. Hence, we must focus on getting good-quality citizens rather than carry a large PR population who are content to remain PRs indefinitely instead of taking up Singapore citizenship. Without this infusion of new citizens, based on the current demographic trends, we will soon have a shrinking population and a declining Singapore. Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to assure this House that the Government is cognisant of the ground sentiments and feedback on the issues which had been brought about by immigration in recent years. We have made careful refinements and changes to our policies to address these concerns. But we have also to be practical and realistic. We must look at the issue of foreign workers and immigration objectively and rationally. We must recognise that good-quality foreign workers and immigration still remain important to our sustained economic growth and are vital to address our serious longer-term population challenges. Ultimately, the key is always in finding the right dynamic balance and trade-offs, as some MPs have suggested.”