Speech on the President's Address: 25 May 2009

[UPDATED: videos added, and see transcript of PM's speech here]

I spoke today in the debate on the President's Address in opening this new session of Parliament. Parliament was prorogued last month, meaning the previous session of Parliament was ended and a new session would begin. It does not mean that Parliament was dissolved, and is not related to the calling of a general election. It also does not mean that my term as a NMP is over, as the duration of my term is fixed at 2.5 years (or until Parliament is dissolved), and is not affected by the prorogation.

The video and the text of my speech are below. I had to scramble this morning after reading the reports of the Senior Minister's remarks on changes to the political system, basically re-writing a big chunk of my speech. But I think it was good, because his comments provided a reference point for what I wanted to say.

Motion of thanks on President's Address: 25 May 2009

Part 1



Part 2

1. Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. I support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

Economic situation

2. It has been about four months since the Budget debate. Since then, the economic picture has gone from a despairing consensus view of doom and gloom for the world's economies, to the ongoing mixed signals of “green shoots” of growth struggling to overcome “brown weeds” of contraction. It seems that there may now be some room for cautious optimism . While the economy may still take a turn for the worse, nevertheless things do not seem to have gotten as dire as some had feared. And that is something we all need to give some thanks for.

3. Now that there is greater clarity on the economic situation, people have started looking to a potential upturn. The Finance Minister had, in his Budget speech in January, already mentioned the need to position Singapore to take advantage of the inevitable recovery. That was wise, and demonstrated much foresight.

4. Nevertheless, the global environment has changed. Overseas regulatory changes pose challenges to the continued success of Singapore's economic model. For instance, the US is currently considering tax changes that could eliminate the advantages of our tax regime for US MNCs, directly threatening our model of economic growth which is heavily reliant on attracting MNCs to invest and set up shop here. Similarly, recent international pressure on jurisdictions like Singapore to subscribe to OECD-prescribed standards of banking secrecy could adversely impact the private wealth management industry here. I hope that the Government will clarify its position on these issues, and its proposed responses if any.

5. At the same time, Singapore continues to struggle to produce homegrown world-beating private enterprises with global reach and global profiles. The other so-called Asian tigers have all succeeded in doing so – but we can still only point to the same few examples like Singapore Airlines, most or all of which remain Temasek-linked companies. This is a striking symbol of our ongoing struggle to develop indigenous entrepreneurs. We need to fundamentally re-engineer our economy to solve this problem, and I look forward to more radical and innovative proposals from the Government on this, embodying the “fresh rethinking and creative answers” mentioned by the President.

Principles governing political system, and changes to the system

6. Sir, the President also said, “Sustaining economic growth will always be a high priority.” It is heartening to hear the President acknowledging, even implicitly, that economic growth is not the only priority and it is not the highest priority. One important non-economic priority highlighted by the President was the evolution of our political system. As he said, “Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals, and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”

7. The Senior Minister has set out three fundamental principles for these changes: firstly, they must be fair to all contesting parties and not be biased in favour of any party; secondly, they must result in a strong and effective Government, and not a weak coalition Government; and thirdly, they must facilitate representation for diverse views in Parliament, including Opposition views.

8. Sir, I have three comments on these principles laid down by the Senior Minister. Firstly, it seems to me that these three principles implicitly accept that fairness in the electoral system is critical for its legitimacy, and also that it is in the interest of Singapore to have a diversity of views in Parliament, including Opposition views. I applaud the Senior Minister, and the Government, for taking this stance. The rules must be fair, and must be seen by Singaporeans as being fair, for the electoral system to have the necessary legitimacy and for the elected Government of the day to have the moral authority to rule.

9. My second comment is that any principles that we seek to apply to the electoral system must be limited to principles on the ground rules and the processes and procedures for elections. These principles should not prescribe outcomes in Parliamentary representation, which should be determined through the ballot box.

10. Taking the second principle, about the system resulting in a strong and effective Government, I would agree with it to the extent that it argues against pure proportional representation. But we need to understand, and to accept, that even in a first-past-the-post system, it is possible to have an outcome where no single party wins an absolute majority, thereby necessitating a coalition government.

11. We should also remain open to the possibility of a hybrid system, where the majority of seats are determined by a first-past-the-post system, but with a limited number of seats allocated by way of proportional representation. Such a system would be consonant with the Senior Minister's third principle, of facilitating diverse views in Parliament, and would do so in a manner based on voting patterns, which makes it more consistent with democratic principles than a scheme like the Nominated MP scheme.

12. My third and final comment, Sir, is that these principles should be applicable to the system as a whole, and not just to the changes that will be unveiled this week. These are important principles that go to the fundamentals of our system, and hence should permeate the entire system. Fair and just changes tacked onto a system viewed as lacking in legitiamcy, would not save the system itself.

Political apathy and disengagement

13. But before we go into the changes themselves, we should first examine why we are seeking to change the political system. The President has explained that it needs to evolve, to respond to changes in circumstances and goals. I think globalization may have made our longstanding problem of political apathy and disengagement amongst Singaporeans so critical, that we now have no choice but to squarely address them.

14. Why is it a problem, that Singaporeans are apathetic about and disengaged from the political process? To begin with, Singapore is, and must be, fundamentally for Singaporeans. That being so, Singaporeans have to be responsible for shaping the Singapore story. We cannot leave it to anyone else to do so. And to shape the story, Singaporeans need to participate in politics.

15. We can import workers and professionals: construction workers, domestic workers, nurses, IT professionals, engineers, bankers, even CEOs. But we cannot import our politicians and our leaders. We are an immigrant nation, but we are also a sovereign nation. We can take advice from foreign advisers and consultants, but only we ourselves are capable of truly understanding the unique challenges facing our country and making the right decisions for Singapore. The destiny of Singapore has to lie in the hands of Singaporeans, and of Singaporeans only. There are only 4 million odd Singaporeans, and even one Singaporean opting out or being excluded from this collective process of decision-making called politics is one too many.

16. Today’s globalised world has made it easier for Singaporeans to pack up and leave this country. People leave for a combination of reasons, and economic opportunities are certainly a key consideration. But some research has shown that the perceived political climate in Singapore is also a relevant factor. More importantly, only Singapore can truly give Singaporeans a sense of political rootedness and full participation in the political process, and such a sense of political stakeholding could go a long way towards keeping them here.

17. Meanwhile, technology has made it easier and more tempting for Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, to plug in and tune out. We have to engage these Singaporeans and help them understand the importance of staying anchored in the offline world, so that they can have a say in moulding the Singapore that they want to live in, one that provides them with the freedom, stability and security needed for their continued immersion in online social networks, computer games and Internet video, if they so choose.

Changes to the GRC system

18. So what can we do? What changes should we look at?

19. I think there are many things that can be done, and there is no single magic bullet. But in this speech, I will touch only on the most fundamental act in a democracy: the vote.

20. The act of voting represents the core of democracy and political participation. Yet, a large number of Singaporeans do not get to vote at each election, thanks to the prevalence of walkovers. Many Singaporeans have told me about their dismay at never having voted in their lives. While there may be other reasons for walkovers being so common, the size and number of Group Representation Constituencies is obviously a key reason. We cannot deny that the incidence of walkovers has been accompanied by the proliferation of five- and six-member GRCs.

21. For many Singaporeans, past changes in electoral boundaries, often pertaining to electoral wards that have just witnessed a close contest in the preceding elections, have also undermined the sacred act of voting. The oddity of Braddell Heights being part of Marine Parade GRC is merely the most striking example of such changes. I must point out that the changes to electoral boundaries leading up to the 2006 elections were not so egregious, and for that I thank and commend this Government. I hope that there will again not be any drastic changes when it comes to the next general elections, whenever they may be called.

22. Even if we accept that GRCs are necessary to ensure minority representation in Parliament, which is consistent with the Senior Minister’s third principle about diverse representation, there is nevertheless room for reducing the size of GRCs. I believe that there is also room to introduce more Single Member Constituencies, above the Constitutional minimum of 9 SMC wards. These moves, together with clear commitments to refrain from the constant re-drawing of electoral boundaries and to openly publish the reasons and justifications for any such re-drawing, will all go a long way towards restoring Singaporeans' respect for the political process in Singapore, and hence increasing their desire to participate in and engage with the political process. The act of voting embodies participation in democracy, and seeing and experiencing the potential for impact imbued in their vote will naturally lead to renewed political consciousness and empowerment amongst citizens.

23. The process of awakening Singaporeans' political consciousness and getting them to become more politically engaged is a long-term undertaking, and there are many things that can and need to be done. But given the central role played by voting in a democracy, that has to be the starting place if we truly want Singaporean politics to evolve and Singaporeans to participate. The sheer symbolism of a reduction in the size of GRCs and the introduction of more SMCs will go a long way towards convincing Singaporeans that the PAP is serious about political change, even if it may potentially put its absolute dominance of this House at risk.

24. Sir, the next elections have to be called by 2011. Even as we work on overcoming the economic difficulties facing us, we cannot run away from the immutable reality of the electoral timetable, and we should not close our eyes to the long-term challenges facing Singapore as a society, a polity and a nation. There is no better time to start facing up to them than with the next elections, and I urge the Government to make the right choice for Singaporeans, even if it may be at a potential cost to the ruling party. Only then, can we truly fulfill the Singapore Promise, and create our Home, our Future and our Singapore.

25. Sir, with that, I support the motion.

Clarifications by Prime Minister in debate on motion on by-elections: 27 August 2008

This is a little late, so apologies in advance.

Back in August, we had a debate on by-elections, and I spoke in that debate as well. The PM's speech opposing Professor Thio's motion was extensively covered by the MSM, so I won't reproduce that here.

What was not so widely covered, was a couple of clarificatory questions that I posed to him after his speech, and his replies. The PM's commitment to "do the same", in case the Opposition wins a GRC and a seat becomes vacant, is very welcome.

The video and text of the clarifications by the PM are below.

Clarifications by the PM:

Clarificatory questions and response

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for a very comprehensive speech and response, but I have two clarifications for the Prime Minister. Firstly, the Prime Minister has described our system as being a second model where voters vote for a party and not the candidate. Is the Prime Minister then advocating some sort of system of proportional representation which is really the pure form of such a second model?

And my second clarification, Sir, is that this second model is about voting for a party. Is it then the PM's position that, if in future an opposition party holds more than one seat in Parliament and one seat is vacated, he will allow the other MPs of that party to cover for the vacated seat?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, one of the first things you learn in trying to make practical solutions in government is that we do not look for pure solutions, we look for workable solutions. And proportional representation, for reasons which we have explained and which we can debate on another occasion, is the wrong solution for Singapore. It leads to divided politics, it leads to extreme positions being espoused by parties which are going for votes on each side, and it leads to a fracture of our multi-racial and multi-religious harmony. You will have race-based parties, religious-based parties. There will be no end of trouble.

So, we are not talking about proportional representation, we are talking about a system where, when voters vote, they are not just voting for the Member. Look at the Member. Is he honest? Is he a cheat? Is he capable? Will he serve you? But look at the party. What party does he belong to? What is the credibility of that party? What can he do if he is elected in that party? And then make your choice because you are voting not just for the voter, but also for the party. And because of the way things have turned out and the PAP has a overwhelming majority in this House, so we amended the legislation and the Constitution to create NCMPs to give the opposition more representation in this House without having proportional representation.

As for what happens if an opposition constituency falls vacant, I have many options. I could call a by-election or I could allow some other opposition MP to cover for him. There is no difficulty doing that. We do that for PAP constituencies and we will do the same for the opposition constituencies as well.

Speech on "Parliamentary Elections": 27 August 2008

As most or all of you would know, Prof Thio Li-Ann and Dr Loo Choon Yong filed a motion to ask Parliament to call on the Government to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act, to provide for by-elections in certain circumstances. This was a Member's motion, not an adjournment motion. I will explain the difference in greater detail, as well as talk about what happened in Parliament today, in a later post.

But for now, the videos of my speech are below (courtesy of TOC), with the prepared text of my speech which I have updated to reflect the actual delivered speech as closely as possible (although I know I made some other changes on the fly which are not reflected here) below them. Also, the results of the TOC street poll can be found here.

Part 1:



Part 2:

Speech on the motion on by-elections filed by Nominated Member Prof Thio Li-Ann and seconded by Dr Loo Choon Yong

1. Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I rise in support of the motion.

2. This motion was filed by Professor Thio and Dr. Loo, in the wake of the passing away of Dr. Ong Chit Chung, an elected Member for Jurong GRC. The Government has indicated that it will not be calling for a by-election in Jurong GRC. Instead, the other elected Members in the GRC will take turns to cover the duties of Dr. Ong. This was the same approach taken in 1993, when Dr. Tay Eng Soon, then an elected Member for Eunos GRC, passed away, and in 1999 when Mr Choo Wee Khiang of Jalan Besar GRC resigned.

3. The motion has three parts. Firstly, it calls upon this House to affirm the importance of representative democracy. Secondly, it proposes a fine-tuning of the electoral system, to provide for by-elections in certain circumstances. Finally, it calls for all by-elections to be called within 3 months of the date of vacancy, unless general elections are imminent.

Representative democracy

4. Sir, the first part of the motion on the importance of representative democracy must surely be beyond doubt and beyond debate. We are a parliamentary democracy, and the elected Members of this House represent the people. The people have voted the Government into power, and that is where the Government draws its legitimacy from. Without representative democracy, the Government would have zero legitimacy, and that is the source of the Government’s right to rule.

5. I cannot imagine any Member disputing or disagreeing with the importance of representative democracy, and I cannot imagine any Member not agreeing with this first part of the motion. Indeed, any elected Member who is reluctant to affirm the importance of representative democracy should consider whether he or she should continue as a Member of this House.

Time-frame for calling a by-election

6. I will now touch briefly on the third part of the motion. As I cannot do better than the learned Professor Thio here, I will simply say that I fully endorse her speech on this aspect.

7. The Nominated member has described to this House the different approaches of a number of countries. With such a divergence of practice, the proposed 3-month timeframe seems to me eminently reasonable, especially when the motion also envisages the need for an exception where general elections are imminent. So I also support this third part of the motion.

8. Mr Hri Kumar points to the UK, and says that the 3-month timeline cited by Professor Thio is only a convention. Well, as Mr Hri Kumar no doubt knows, the UK does not have a codified, written Constitution, and Westminster conventions are regarded as being as good as law.

When a by-election should be called

9. I now move on to the second part of the motion, which in my view represents the meat of the motion. This second part asks this House to call on the Government to fine-tune the electoral system, by introducing amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act requiring a by-election in certain stipulated circumstances. These circumstances are where a Member of a GRC belonging to a minority community within the terms of section 8A(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act vacates his or her seat for any reason; where half or more of the elected Members for a GRC vacate their seats for any reason; or where the elected Members for a single member constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason.

10. Sir, my own view is a little different. I firmly believe that a by-election should be called whenever there is any vacancy in a GRC, not just when the vacancy is left by the minority Member, or when half or more of the elected Members vacate their seats. I would therefore argue that a by-election should be called in Jurong GRC, as a result of the vacancy caused by the passing away of Dr. Ong Chit Chung.

11. It does seem from the previous speakers’ speeches, that I may be alone in this House in this regard. And I also recognize that this specific point, of whether there should be a by-election where there is a single vacancy in a GRC, has been debated in the past. Nevertheless, I ask for the indulgence of this House, while I spend a few minutes on what I call the “3 Ps” – Principle, Practicality, and the People.

The first P: Principle

12. Sir, the starting point must surely be the principle of representative democracy, as recognized in the first part of the motion. This principle is the first P. I think Mr Hri Kumar said that there is no universal definition for this. But I disagree. I see this very simply.

13. In Singapore, the people elect their representatives to Parliament. Where the seat in a single member constituency is vacated for any reason, the people cease to be represented. To avoid this situation, a by-election should be called.

14. The logic is simple and clear for single member constituencies, and I think there should be no dispute or disagreement insofar as the motion calls for a writ for by-election to be issued in the event of a vacancy in a single member constituency for any reason.

15. The situation is muddied somewhat by the GRC scheme, because there would remain other elected Members for that GRC. And that is the nub of the issue here.

16. As I have said, elected Members have the legitimacy of the people’s endorsement, of representing the will of the people. The mandate from the people is fundamental to a functioning democracy.

17. So when the electors in a GRC elect a team of candidates, what is the mandate being given? Well, in the 2006 general elections, I was a voter in Ang Mo Kio GRC, voting for a team of candidates. And to me, the mandate was to the team as a whole.

18. I think the mandate is for the team of candidates, as elected by the voters, to represent the GRC in Parliament. And if the composition of the team changes for any reason, then it by definition becomes a different team. It ceases to be the team elected by the voters. In that situation, surely a fresh mandate from the voters is necessary.

19. Jurong GRC was uncontested in the 2006 general elections, and so the team there entered Parliament by way of a walk-over. But this does not change the fact that the team today is different from the team that was nominated, and that entered Parliament, in 2006.

20. So on principle, I would say that a by-election is required in Jurong GRC.

The second P: Practicality

21. I think that the principle of representative democracy should by itself settle the issue. But some have cited reasons based on practicality, in arguing against having a by-election. In the first place, I do not think that practical considerations should ever be allowed to trump a principle that is so fundamental to the concept of democracy. But even if we are to accept that this second P of practicality is relevant to the discussion, to my mind, it also points in favour of a by-election.

22. The first reason that some may cite to justify not calling for a by-election, is that the law does not require it. Well, Professor Thio has spoken on what the law is, and she has done so far more ably than I ever could.

23. But I do not believe that this House should feel bound by what the law today says. This House makes law for Singapore. It would be odd – no, it would be nothing less than sheer abdication of Constitutional responsibility -- for this House to say that it is bound by existing law and to stop there, instead of considering what the law should say, and then changing the law to say that.

24. The law should reflect correct principle, and we should not distort principle to accommodate existing law or contort our thinking to justify incorrect law. If the law is unclear or just plain wrong, then this House is duty-bound to clarify or correct it, instead of hiding behind such an unclear or wrongful law and perpetuating an undesirable state of affairs. So I would not place too much weight on the fact that the existing law does not require a by-election.

25. Another reason that has been cited is that a by-election would distract Singaporeans from the pressing issues posed by a slowing economy and rising inflation. This was also the reason cited when Dr. Tay Eng Soon passed away in 1993.

26. Sir, surely this argument cannot stand. It implies that voting and elections are luxuries, that they are really just so much fun and games to be left for good times, and inappropriate and unnecessary in bad times. It suggests that the right of voters to be represented by the team they have elected, is in reality a privilege and not an entitlement. It means that the principle of representative democracy is not fundamental to our society, and can be waived by the Government of the day when deemed inexpedient.

27. I think that cannot be right. Either a by-election is necessary, or it is not. Either the people have a right to be represented by the team they have elected, and hence the right to select a fresh team if the elected team changes, or they do not. Either the principle of representative democracy is important, or it is not. The prevailing economic conditions should have no role to play in this, and certainly should not be allowed to trump these considerations.

28. A third reason that is often cited is that the remaining Members in the GRC can cover the duties of the Member who has vacated his or her seat, and so voters are none the worse off.

29. Sir, this argument belittles the contributions of elected Members. Exactly as Professor Thio has said, ever since my own appointment as a Nominated Member, I have come to appreciate the heavy duties and burdens of elected Members. I, as an unelected Member of this House, am utterly dismayed by the suggestion that it is perfectly all right for the remaining Members in a GRC to cover the duties of a Member who has vacated his or her seat, and that nobody should think twice about it. It trivializes and downplays the contributions of elected Members, in a way that I think is unfair and unjustified. Do the elected Members of this House really stand for this view? What are they saying about what they do? So I do not accept this argument either, and I urge my elected colleagues not to accept it either. I therefore echo the call of Dr. Loo for the Whip to be liefted, so that the elected Members can vote freely on this.

30. Furthermore, as Professor Thio and Dr. Loo have said, how can Parliamentary duties be covered by other Members? Are those who rely on this argument, saying that all elected GRC Members in this House are interchangeable?

31. Instead, I would argue that practicality demands a by-election, and certainly in Jurong GRC. Of the four remaining Members, two are full Cabinet ministers, one is a Senior Minister of State in two ministries, and the fourth is a veteran backbencher with numerous appointments. It is a question mark whether they can adequately discharge the duties in connection of the vacated seat. Even trying to do so, will impose a tremendous burden on them. Just as an example, do we really want to risk over-burdening the Minister of Finance in these trying economic times? Surely it would be more practical to call for a by-election, to ensure a full complement of elected Members in Jurong GRC.

The third P: the People

32. Sir, my third P refers to the people. Much has been said about the question of whether a by-election is required in Jurong GRC, whether in the press, on the Internet, and in this House today. But what do the people themselves think?

33. Madam Halimah, who is from Jurong GRC, has talked about the MPs’ discussions with the grassroots leaders in Jurong GRC. But the grassroots leaders are not the people.

34. The Singapore blogsite The Online Citizen decided to find out what the people thought, from them directly. It conducted a street poll last Saturday, to find out whether Singaporeans, and in particular residents of Jurong GRC, think there should be a by-election. I was one of the volunteers who helped conduct the poll, and as I understand it, the results were published a short while ago today.

35. The question asked was a simple one:

Dr. Ong Chit Chung passed away recently. Do you think that there should be a by-election in Jurong GRC?

36. A total of 478 Singapore citizens were polled, of which 312 were residents of Jurong GRC and 166 were non-residents. Of these 478 respondents, 122 or 25.5% did not know. Of the remainder, 214 respondents, or 60.1% of respondents who had an opinion either way, felt that a by-election should be held in Jurong GRC. 142 respondents, or 39.9% of respondents who had an opinion, disagreed.

37. So much for Singaporeans as a whole. What about Jurong GRC residents? Well, of the 312 residents polled, 85 or 27.2% did not know whether a by-election should be held. 129 residents, or 56.8% of residents who had an opinion, thought that a by-election should be held, while 98 residents, or 43.2% of residents who had an opinion, did not think so.

38. This was a street poll. It was anonymous, it was random, and it does not purport to be statistically valid or representative of Singaporeans or any other group.

39. But I think the results are nevertheless very interesting and very instructive. Putting aside all those respondents who did not have an opinion -- and here I must say it was a disturbingly high number -- the majority of Singaporeans, and the majority of Jurong GRC residents, felt that a by-election should be held. Even including those respondents who did not have an opinion, it is quite clear that more Singaporeans and more Jurong GRC residents wanted a by-election, than those who did not.

40. Sir, we are here today to debate the nature of democracy in Singapore. Democracy is about the people, about how they have the power. And the people have spoken. They have spoken, their voice rings loud and clear, and they want a by-election.

41. So on principle, on practicality and on the voice of the people, based on these 3 Ps, I believe that a by-election should be held for a GRC, whenever there is even a single vacancy, regardless of whether it is the minority Member or not.

The motion

42. Be that as it may, the issue of whether a by-election should be called when there is a single vacancy in a GRC has been debated before in this House, and I do not expect the Government to change its position today. The motion before this House also advocates a different position.

43. Nevertheless, I support the motion. My position is more expansive than this motion, and so my position encompasses this motion. There is no inconsistency. Just as I believe that there should be a by-election when there is a single vacancy in a GRC, I also believe that there should be a by-election when there is a single vacancy in a GRC caused by the minority Member vacating his or her seat, and I also believe that there should be a by-election when half or more of the Members in a GRC vacate their seats. I see the motion as positive movement in the right direction, and so I am comfortable supporting it.

44. To me, this motion is fundamentally about setting in place the right principles for calling by-elections when there are vacancies in a GRC, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Government of the day. The motion goes about this in a deliberate and measured manner. It calls for a by-election when it is the minority Member who vacates his or her seat. It also calls for a by-election when half or more of the Members in a GRC vacate their seats. Both are eminently reasonable.

45. It is important to lay these foundations now, so that we do not scramble or leave things to discretion if and when the situations envisaged in the second part of the motion arise. We profess to be a forward-looking state. Well, this is too important an issue to not look forward on. We should set the policy now, so that we have a consistent approach to such situations moving forward. When the day comes, we will know what to do, and nothing is left to discretion or chance.

46. Professor Thio has outlined an explanation grounded in logic and in law, for why a by-election is required when a minority Member in a GRC vacates his or her seat. That must surely be so, given that the fundamental justification and purpose of GRCs is to ensure some minimum amount of minority representation in Parliament. I disagree with Mr Hri Kumar’s comments on this. I cannot see how any other position can be sustainable, as it would severely undercut and undermine the foundations of the GRC scheme.

47. Ms. Sylvia Lim, Madam Halimah and Mr Hri Kumar have spoken about the potential for a single member in a GRC team to hold the rest of the team, or even the Government, to ransom. My short response to that, is that the political parties have to select their candidates carefully. Extending their argument further, a group of elected Members can get together and blackmail their party. Where do we stop? Party discipline is the mechanism to address this issue, not an imperfect law.

48. Similarly, where half or more of the elected Members for a GRC vacate their seats for any reason, then surely there can be no doubt that it is no longer the team that electors have voted for. And surely it cannot be argued that the remaining Members can perform the duties of the other Members who have vacated their seats. It would stretch reason and credulity to argue that a by-election is not necessary, even if half or more of the elected Members for a GRC have vacated their seats.

Conclusion

49. Sir, this motion presents an opportunity for this House to advance the cause of representative democracy in Singapore. I support it, even if it does not go as far as I would like it.

50. Sir, with that, I support the motion.