Group Representation Constituencies

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

5.01 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House calls for the abolition of Group Representation Constituencies".

*The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai.

The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system was introduced in 1988 when the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Constitution were amended to provide for the creation of three-Member GRCs. The justification for this change was to safeguard minority representation in Parliament. The number of Members of Parliament (MPs) from GRCs were limited to a range of 25% to 50%. Over the years, the GRC system has evolved for varying reasons.

In 1991, the maximum size of GRCs was increased from three to four candidates, and the number of MPs in GRCs was raised to a range of 25% to 75%. In 1996, the size of a GRC was raised again, this time to a maximum of six candidates. The upper limit of 75% on MPs from GRCs was removed and replaced by a minimum of eight MPs from Single Member Constituencies (SMCs). This meant that the upper limit on MPs from GRCs was effectively increased to about 90%.

My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, will elaborate further on the changes to the GRC system over the years. I will now talk about the weaknesses of the GRC system.

While the objective of ensuring minority representation in Parliament is laudable, the GRC system brings along other consequences that are undesirable. A common complaint about the GRC system is that MPs are not necessarily elected on their own merits. The team approach allows some Members to ride on the coat-tails of other more established or popular team members. It is also conversely true.

Consider a GRC with two teams of four candidates. If all the candidates were to contest in four separate SMCs, voters could have selected two candidates from Team A and two candidates from Team B as the ones they feel most suitable to represent them in Parliament. However, as they can only vote for one team or the other, the result is the loss of two stronger candidates and the election of two weaker candidates. This illustration shows how the GRC system can lead to a sub-optimal outcome for voters.

Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in 2006 that the GRC system helped the People’s Action Party (PAP) recruitment efforts by giving potential candidates the assurance of a good chance of winning. I interpret this as open acknowledgment that the coat-tail effect was intentional and the GRC was intended to enhance the chances of the PAP winning at the expense of the Opposition. And, indeed, it took more than 20 years before the strongest Opposition party was able to win a GRC.

Such an approach, however, encourages the “kiasu”, or fear to lose, syndrome, breeds a generation of politicians sheltered from tough electoral battles and sets unsustainable expectations. All it took was one electoral loss for Singapore politics to lose some Ministers permanently. PAP has said that if voters do not vote for the PAP's team, key Ministers will disappear from the Cabinet.

Such a portrayal attempts to hold voters to ransom. This is unfair on Singaporean voters. It also hampered the political development of Singapore by setting higher and higher hurdles for the Opposition parties which are much weaker compared to the ruling party. The legislative changes on GRC done in three stages, in the years 1988, 1991 and 1996 saw the percentage of GRC seats rise from 48% in the General Election (GE) in 1988 to 74% in GE 1991 to 89% in 1997. In GE 2020, this eased to 85%.

In an SMC, candidates need the support of their constituents to win elections. Their election outcome is more directly controlled by voters. In a GRC, however, the election outcome is also dependent on which team a candidate is placed in, which is a decision made by party leaders. It becomes unclear whether voters' decision or party leader's decision play a bigger part. Voters' influence on election outcome is thus reduced under a GRC system.

Over the years, many MPs in GRCs have vacated their seats for various reasons. Some passed away, some resigned over conduct that compromised their ability to serve as MPs, and others resigned to stand in Presidential Elections. In each of these cases, no by-election was held to fill these vacancies. This is because by-elections are expressly not required to be called when a vacancy arises in a GRC, unless the entire slate of MPs representing a GRC vacate their seats. The Government explained that this is to prevent any individual MP in a GRC from holding the other MPs in the same GRC to ransom.

However, this also has the effect of depriving residents in these GRCs of an elected representative in Parliament, which is highly undesirable, given our system of representative democracy. This issue has been debated several times before in this House. In 1999, following the resignation of Mr Choo Wee Khiang as an MP of Jalan Besar GRC, Mr JB Jeyaratnam moved a Motion for this House to resolve that a writ of election should be issued to fill the vacancy. During his speech, Mr Jeyaratnam noted that: "Jalan Besar GRC voters are entitled to four MPs in Parliament", and "that is their constitutional right".

The Government's response to Mr Jeyaratnam's point at that time was most unsatisfactory. Then-Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, claimed that there was no diminution of voters' constitutional rights because, "They voted for the four MPs and the MPs carry on" and "the voters, in fact, voted with the knowledge that should a vacancy arise, such a vacancy need not be filled as provided for in our law". Mr Wong's response does not address the underlying issue, which is that the voters of Jalan Besar GRC voted for a team of four MPs with four votes to represent them in this House. When a vacancy arises in a GRC, the voters of that GRC have lost a vote in Parliament to represent their interest. The other MPs in the GRC cannot take over the voting rights or the Parliamentary Question quota or the right to raise an Adjournment Motion of the MP that has resigned.

At the Parliamentary level, the rights of the GRC voters are unquestionably diminished when an unfilled vacancy arises in a GRC. This is particularly pertinent when the Member of Parliament who has resigned is the minority representative for that GRC. The vacancy undermines the primary objective of the GRC system, which is to ensure minority representation in Parliament.

At the constituency level, while the remaining MPs in the team can help to cover for their former teammate in house visits and Meet-the-People sessions, something somewhere has to give. As former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), Prof Thio Li-ann, pointed out in her Motion in 2008: "MPs have punishing schedules". MPs have to juggle their responsibilities in their full-time jobs, their Parliamentary duties, their constituency duties, their party duties, and their personal and family lives. If their constituency duties increased due to covering for a vacancy, there must be a corresponding cut somewhere else. The cut could be in the area of Parliamentary duties, the quality in carrying out constituency duties, or sacrificing their personal or family lives, none of which is fair nor desirable.

With the GRC seats comprising 85% of all elected seats in Parliament, the departure of any MP has an 85% chance of the seat remaining vacant. The latest vacancy will be arising in Jurong GRC due to Senior Minister Tharman's decision to contest in the Presidential Election. This is not the first such occurrence. The current President also resigned in 2017 as a PAP MP, leaving a vacant seat in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC. Does the PAP intend to regularly repeat this? Running in a GE is an inherent promise to serve the residents for a term of five years. Breaking that promise is not something that should be taken lightly. It is, therefore, troubling if such broken promises were to occur at regular intervals. As a vacancy will not be filled via a by-election, residents are underserved and under-represented for the sake of the party's other motivations. Did the party not plan for this expected vacancy when it went into GE 2020? Could it not have informed voters of this possibility or selected its candidate from an SMC so that residents are not underserved?

It can also be argued that a team without Senior Minister Tharman is not what the voters in Jurong GRC voted for. Senior Minister Tharman has served many terms as an MP and in various senior positions in Public Service, while the other team members are relatively new. The case that a team without Senior Minister Tharman makes for a material difference is overwhelming. This is analogous to having the terms of a contract changed materially and unilaterally midway through by one party but the other party remained bound to the contract until expiry. In any other context, this would not have been accepted.

If we do not have GRCs, only SMCs, then these problems would not exist. Ensuring minority representation is the justification for the GRC. While the GRC is purportedly to protect minority interests, it paradoxically entrenches racial lines and promotes the belief that minority candidates are unable to win elections on their own merits.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is confident that Singaporeans do not vote along racial lines and minority candidates are well able to win elections on their own merits. Even though the majority of voters are Chinese, many non-Chinese candidates have won elections. Before the introduction of GRCs, in GE 1984, minority candidates have won in SMCs against majority candidates; for example, Mr JB Jeyaratnam, Mr Zulkifli Mohammed, Mr Abbas Abu Amin, and so on. More recently, we also have Mr Michael Palmer and Mr Murali Pillai. In GRCs, we have the Aljunied team where three out of the five MPs are non-Chinese. Senior Minister Tharman is one of the most popular politicians and his decision to contest in the Presidential Election showed his confidence that Singaporeans do not vote along racial lines.

However, if the PAP is not convinced, there are other ways to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament without the problems that come with the GRC system. We would like to offer two alternatives here for consideration and debate.

The first alternative is a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme for minorities, similar to the current NCMP scheme for Opposition candidates. With this scheme, minority candidates contest in SMCs just like other candidates. If enough minority candidates are elected, this scheme does not kick in. However, should there be under-representation of minorities, minority candidates who did not win the election but had the highest percentage of votes can be appointed as NCMPs to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament.

Residents from all constituencies can approach these NCMPs for assistance. As we are all familiar with the NCMP scheme for Opposition candidates, this scheme requires little explanation and minimal disruption to our current model.

Another way of ensuring minority representation in Parliament is to adopt some form of proportional representation. Under this system, a party that obtained 10% of the national votes will be allocated about 10% of the seats.

When responding to a Motion brought forward by Prof Thio Li-ann in 2008, the Prime Minister said that our electoral system is designed to encourage voters to think very carefully not only about the individual that they want to represent them in Parliament but also the party that they want to form the Government.

If we want voters to vote for a political party instead of a candidate, the logical step is to move towards a system of party-list, proportional representation, where parties put forth a list of candidates for election. Voters vote for their desired political party. Seats are then allocated to each political party based on their national vote share. Based on the seats allocated, each party then selects the candidates on its party list to take up the seats.

Currently, the PAP has close to 90% of the elected seats in Parliament even though its national vote share is about 60%. Proportional representation seeks to move the representation in Parliament closer to the national vote share to better reflect the wishes of the voters.

Let us first look at how this is done in other countries.

While there are countries fully on the proportional representation system like Israel and Sweden, there are also a number of countries with a hybrid system containing both first-past-the-post and proportional representation elements.

The election in our constituencies is an example of the first-past-the-post system where the candidates with the highest votes get the seats.

In Germany, approximately 50% of the seats are based on the first-past-the-post system and the other half on proportional representation. In New Zealand, approximately 60% of the seats are on first-past-the-post system and 40% on proportional representation. In Thailand, the split is 80-20.

We can adapt this system to ensure minority representation by stipulating a multiracial slate for SMC contests and a multiracial party list. Each party must select from the list to meet minimum racial representation requirements.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, the GRC system has generated several sub-optimal outcomes such as voters being held to ransom to vote for Ministers, weaker candidates riding on stronger candidates' coat-tails to Parliament and unfilled vacancies leading to residents being underserved and under-represented.

I have presented these shortcomings and offered two alternatives to ensure minority representation in Parliament for consideration and debate. The intention here is not to call for immediate action but for thought and discussion. We are still two years away from the next GE and have time to mull over this matter. In particular, the mixed proportional representation alternative is a major departure from our current system and requires more time and a fuller discussion.

We call on the House and all Singaporeans to consider the alternatives that we have proposed to guarantee minority representation. We believe that unlike the GRC system, these alternatives will strengthen our system of representative democracy and maximise democratic choice for voters. It is time for the GRC system to go. I urge all Members to support the Motion.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

5.20 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as my colleague Hazel Poa said, I will be elaborating further on the history of the GRC system and how the PAP has regularly made changes to the electoral rules to entrench its political dominance.

The introduction of the GRC system was part of a package of constitutional innovations during the 1980s which also included the introduction of the Elected Presidency.

The 1980s was a politically significant era for Singapore. It began with Mr JB Jeyaretnam breaking the Parliamentary dominance of the PAP during the 1981 Anson by-election. Later, the 1984 General Election saw a 13% swing against the PAP and the election of two opposition Members – Mr JB Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam See Tong.

All these took place amidst a changing of guard in the PAP. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the other old guard Ministers retired. The 2G team led by Mr Goh Chok Tong took over.

The PAP has always denied accusations that the introduction of the GRC system and the elected presidency was to entrench its political dominance.

At the beginning, both Constitutional innovations were meant to fulfil a specific purpose. The GRC system was meant to ensure that there will always be a minimum level of minority representation in Parliament. This became increasingly important as resettlement and the creation of Housing and Development Board (HDB) new towns under the Ethnic Integration Policy meant that there were no longer any more Malay majority constituencies.

The Elected Presidency, on the other hand, was meant to safeguard our increasingly large past Reserves by creating a second key to the past Reserves that was independent of the elected Government.

I think that many Singaporeans would have no objections with these schemes if these schemes stayed true to their original purpose. However, both the GRC system and the Elected Presidency have been subject to many changes over the years. Although these changes had various justifications, it is still difficult for the public to be convinced that these frequent changes are not motivated by political considerations.

For example, when the GRC system was introduced during the 1988 GE, all GRCs had three members. This was later expanded to a maximum of four in the 1991 GE. The reason given by the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was to provide flexibility so that we could minimise major changes of boundaries to GRCs which have grown too big for the number of MPs serving them.

This reason was still plausible and acceptable. But then in the 1991 General Election, the Opposition won an unprecedented four seats in Parliament. This was followed by further tweaks to the GRC system. GRCs were expanded to a maximum of six members from the 1997 General Election onwards.

Prime Minister Goh justified this move by claiming that he wanted to devolve more authority to the local communities by setting up Community Development Councils (CDCs). Because CDCs needed economies of scale and a critical mass of residents, Prime Minister Goh said that increasing the maximum number of MPs in the GRC from four to six will give more flexibility to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) to configure a GRC which is the right size for this purpose.

Many Singaporeans, including myself, have never been convinced by this reasoning. Community Development Councils (CDCs) can be formed by forming six adjourning SMCs or two three-member GRCs. There is no need for six-member GRCs.

Instead, many Singaporeans believed that the PAP Government expanded GRC sizes to hamper the Opposition's electoral chances after a strong showing by the Opposition in the 1991 GE.

There are several ways in which GRCs can be used to maximise the PAP's advantages.

Firstly, the varying sizes of GRCs provide maximum flexibility for the EBRC to redraw boundaries in a way that can be advantageous for the ruling party. Since 1988, SMCs that have been absorbed into GRCs have had a higher average vote share for the opposition than the average SMC. In many of these SMCs, the Opposition polled above 40%, such as Braddell Heights, Bukit Batok and Changi in 1991, Joo Chiat in 2011 and Fengshan in 2015. Only SMCs and GRCs that the Opposition have won are consistently spared from changes in their electoral boundaries.

I therefore fully expect West Coast GRC and other constituencies where the PSP contested in the last election to disappear or have their boundaries heavily redrawn in the next election. If that happens, I hope Singaporeans will open their eyes and decide for themselves if these changes are for population shifts and housing developments, or for other reasons.

As a result of the GRC boundaries, many HDB towns and planning areas in Singapore are fragmented among multiple GRCs and by extension, Town Councils and CDCs. For example, Serangoon Town is divided between Marine Parade GRC which is in Southeast CDC, Aljunied GRC which is in Northeast CDC and Ang Mo Kio GRC which is in Central Singapore CDC. The EBRC has never explained the reason for drawing such peculiar boundaries.

Such an arrangement can hardly foster a sense of community among local communities, which the PAP Government has claimed is the purpose of the CDCs. It instead gives rise to suspicion amongst Singaporeans that the PAP is manipulating the GRC system for their political benefit.

Secondly, because GRCs are larger, the demographic composition can be adjusted to ensure that the vote share for the ruling party in GRCs is less likely to deviate significantly from the vote share for the ruling party at the national level. This is unlike SMCs, where a smaller number of voters creates more opportunities for divergence in election results.

Given our first-past-the-post voting system, where the winning party wins all the seats in the GRC, the GRC system magnifies the electoral advantages of the PAP. This is why there is a very high level of disproportionality in the translation of Opposition votes to Parliament seats in Singapore.

In the last election, the Opposition won 39% of the votes, but we only comprise 11% of the elected Members in Parliament. This is due in a large part to the advantages that the GRC system provides for the PAP.

Since the 2006 GE, there has been some positive changes to the GRC system. Prime Minister Lee has pledged to reduce the average size of GRCs and increase the number of SMCs. As a result, the average number of Members of Parliament in a GRC has decreased from 5.4 in 2006, to 4.65 in 2020. Now there are also no more six-Member GRCs.

However, the maximum size of GRCs in the Constitution is still six. So, these jumbo GRCs could still make a comeback in future. It is by the grace of the Prime Minister, rather than by law, that we now have smaller GRCs.

Perhaps Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong can share during today's debate whether he will make the same commitment to having smaller GRCs once he takes over as the next Prime Minister. The Prime Minister exercises great power over electoral boundaries. He gets to decide when the EBRC is formed; who is in the EBRC; and sets the terms of reference for the EBRC. Will Deputy Prime Minister Wong share his future approach towards electoral boundaries?

I have just recounted how the PAP has frequently changed the rules around GRCs over the years. It is a similar story with the Elected Presidency which has been the subject of numerous Constitutional amendments over the years, most notably in 2016.

During the Presidential Election in 2011, Dr Tan Cheng Bock lost to Dr Tony Tan by a razor-thin margin of 0.35%. Many of those who voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock hoped that he would be able to stand again during the Presidential Election in 2017.

In January 2016, Prime Minister Lee announced that it was timely to review the eligibility criteria of the Elected Presidency and convened a constitutional commission to do so. At that point in time, he stated that any legislation to give effect to the Commission's recommendation would be tabled before the end of 2016, but this did not explicitly mean that any changes would be effective from the 2017 Presidential Election.

The Commission eventually recommended that provision should be made for a Reserved Election if a particular race has not been elected for five Presidential terms. This was because the Elected Presidency had to be an integral pillar of Singapore's commitment to multiracialism.

However, the Constitutional Commission also did not make any recommendation regarding when the changes should be implemented. It was the Government that made the decision to start counting from President Wee Kim Wee, which meant that the 2017 Election would be a Reserved Election for Malay candidates only.

The Constitutional Commission also recommended that the criteria for private sector candidates should be tightened significantly – the share capital criteria raised from $100 million to $500 million. This was also implemented at the 2017 Election.

All this came after Dr Tan Cheng Bock announced his intention to contest the 2017 Presidential Election on 11 March 2016, months before the Constitutional Commission released its report.

The changes meant that Dr Tan Cheng Bock not only could not stand in 2017 but would also be permanently disqualified from becoming President because of the share capital requirement for private sector candidates.

This same criterion was also used to disqualify the two Malay candidates who had wanted to stand in the first reserved Election for the Presidency in 2017. It would not be remiss to say that all this cast a dark shadow over the historic Presidency of President Halimah Yacob, who is our first female President and the first Malay President in 46 years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by saying that from a democratic standpoint, the GRC system ought to be regarded as one of the most undesirable electoral rule in the world. It magnifies the seat share of the PAP beyond its voting strength and creates opportunities for the manipulation of electoral boundaries for partisan purposes. Over time, it breeds cynicism and disillusion in our political system as the views of the public are not properly reflected in the election results.

Over the last 40 years, the PAP has won more than two-thirds of the votes only in the 2001 and 2015 GEs. Yet, throughout this time, it has controlled a Parliamentary supermajority of 90% of the seats.

In our system, any political party commanding more than 50% will be able to form a stable government. One with more than 67% of the seats, or two-thirds majority will be able to amend the Constitution at will and thus, will be able to form a very strong government.

The overwhelming PAP's supermajority of 90% is thus not necessary for a strong government. The supermajority only makes it more difficult for the Opposition to voice out the people's concerns adequately in the Parliament. PSP supports the abolition of the GRC system to create a fairer and more representative Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I call on this House to support the Motion. For country, for people.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

5.38 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the hon Members from the PSP for raising this Motion.

A call to abolish the GRC system by an Opposition party is not new one. In a 2014 paper, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) called for this as well. It was also in the Workers' Party's (WP) 2020 elections manifesto under the heading "Accountable Political and Governance Institutions".

The NSP's key argument against the GRC system was that it essentially gave more power to a voted-in GRC because theoretically, one vote could elect several MPs, while in an SMC, one vote goes to elect only one MP.

NSP's Secretary-General called this a lack of parity between the weight of the votes. The paper further added that in Singapore at that time, winning an election by appealing to the voters on the basis of ethnicity was highly improbable.

Let me give emphasis to this. It said that it was highly improbable, which means that the NSP acknowledged that going down this line was a gamble. It felt that the odds were good, but it was nonetheless a gamble. And it is perhaps in this regard that the people also called for the introduction of a "constituencies reserved for minority" scheme in which some SMCs would be reserved for minority candidates.

The WP's argument in its manifesto was that Singapore had matured to a point that there is no evidence now that Singaporeans vote solely along racial lines.

The PSP has made further arguments today about why the GRC advantages the ruling party and disadvantages others and may not be in the interest of Singaporeans.

To quickly touch on the origins of the GRC system – the slated original purpose in 1988 was to guarantee a minimum representation of minorities in Parliament through a structural change to the electoral system. This would eliminate the possibility, however remote, of a Parliament where all elected Members were from a single race. And I must add that a Parliament where all Members are Chinese would have been a conceivable outcome of elections. Given that even as we call ourselves a multiracial society, our population is in fact overwhelmingly Chinese and, as such, it falls to reason that there is likely to be more Chinese candidates from both the ruling party and the Opposition.

Some opposition parties have previously expressed that it was difficult for them to attract enough good minority candidates to field several GRCs at that time. So, it would also have been possible that in the absence of GRCs, the slate of smaller opposition parties may have been entirely, or overwhelmingly, Chinese.

The move to introduce GRCs in 1988 was not the first time that concern over minority representation had been raised and mitigating factors considered. The Government in the early 1980s had considered a twinning model where candidates would have to contest in a pair in some constituencies, with one being a minority. This was dropped upon objection from minority MPs.

And even at the start of Singapore's Independence, minority representation was a concern. The 1966 Constitutional Commission chaired by the then Chief Justice considered this very question. Various proposals were made on how to ensure minority representation in Parliament, including having non-elected minority Members – similar to what the PSP is now proposing – having an Upper House with Members elected to represent various ethnic, religious and linguistic groups; and having representation outrightly proportionate to the racial composition of Singapore – also similar to something that the PSP is proposing. They were all rejected as inadequate structures.

So, this question of minority representation is one we have been pondering from the start of our Independence. Various models have been considered and, ultimately, we landed on the GRC system.

The PSP Motion raises many questions that have been asked before and that have been answered before. But PSP's position is that it is now the right time to reopen the matter and to relitigate on these questions. It appears to be also the position of other Opposition parties.

There is therefore a currency to that proposal and I will come to this point on currency shortly.

But I have some questions as regards the Motion and the proposals made by PSP. And I will also venture to answer my own questions. It is of course open to the PSP and indeed, any other party to disagree or agree with my answers.

My first question is: does the PSP accept that there is no perfect electoral system?

If we were to abolish the GRC system, then we would revert to an SMC first-past-the-post system – it is called the majority-to-reality system, within a Westminster Parliamentary Model.

SMCs have been criticised on various grounds, and alternatives like a party-list system had been proposed, which is a form of proportional representation. As regards to the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, there are also a large number of criticisms. Such systems have been criticised for excluding minority parties who have won a particular share of the vote but did not manage to get past the post in any or many single-seat constituencies. It can lead to scenarios where a party can win over 40% of the vote but has little or no representation in Parliament. The FPTP system has also been found to be very difficult for minority and women candidates to do well in. They have encouraged the development of ethnic-based parties given rise to regional fiefdoms and resulted in large numbers of wasted votes.

There are many criticisms of the FPTP system. I have mentioned only some of the criticisms that have been raised by analysts and academics. And in fact, the Westminster system itself has been criticised on various grounds, but I would not go into details on this.

Likewise, for other types of systems, proportional representation, for example, is criticised for giving rise to gridlock in decision-making due to fractured legislatures. Of course, there are also advantages. Let me cover my views on what the PSP has proposed.

And the other systems, Sir, block vote systems, transferrable vote systems. There are so many of them and all of them have advantages and disadvantages. In other words, none of these systems are perfect systems and each country must decide on what is the most appropriate system for its own social, political and often, geographic context.

So, the PSP proposal is not a proposal to move to a perfect electoral system. It is a move to revert to a prior electoral system. And it is not even a proposal to correct the system but a proposal to transit to what is, in fact, another imperfect system. Even if we were to abolish the GRC system, Sir, and move and revert to what we had before, there would be criticisms of it – there would be advantages and there would be disadvantages as well. The question really is whether what the PSP is proposing is the best system in Singapore's context.

First, the PSP has proposed an NCMP for minorities. The question that arises here is whether we will be able to accept; will Singaporeans be able to accept a scenario in which many or most of our minority MPs are NCMPs? They would have no constituency experience and is it acceptable for most Singaporeans who have exposure only to a Chinese elected MP? This is a distinct possibility.

Second, as regards to proportional representation, I mentioned earlier some of the disadvantages, but all the countries that the hon Member Ms Poa referred to, are countries that have proportional representation systems that are not based on ethnicity, but they are instead based on party. One of the things that we need to think about is how this proposed system would square with the Westminster parliamentary system. In particular, how would the MPs elected be allocated to their constituencies? And, indeed, one of the criticisms of a proportional representation system is that it fails to provide a strong geographical linkage between an MP and an MP's electorate. And furthermore, a party-list system will subject all MPs, not only minority MPs, to the system, but it will provide a proviso for minorities, and this may lead to fractious legislatures.

Second, does the PSP accept that the GRC system has achieved its original primary objectives? My answer is quite clearly yes. We have good minority representation in the House. But more importantly, we have minority representation without concerns or issues of race being brought up during the elections. Let us understand what this means. It is a phenomenal feat. Race may not now be a consideration in the elections, not despite the GRC system but because of it. And the GRC system simply takes questions of race, religion and all of these other potentially divisive qualities out of the equation. I really hope that we recognise this.

In my view, it is difficult to argue that the GRC system has not met its primary objective and that is, to put it bluntly, to achieve fuss-free minority representation in Parliament, something that all the previous proposals may not have achieved.

Further to this, race is largely removed as a strategic consideration in how parties decide which candidate runs in which constituency.

If we were to abolish the GRC system, I imagine that race would invariably become one of the important considerations in where candidates run or where they are placed. I do not believe that parties would just be deploying candidates around willy-nilly and simply hope for the best. Such a party would not likely do well in the elections.

But what would happen if we abolished GRCs would be that race and religion would creep back into the party's considerations when determining their elections strategy. Furthermore, the GRC system has also worked to ensure that all parties contesting in the elections and in GRCs must themselves be multiracial. This can only be a good thing. And tellingly and surprisingly, I found that both of the PSP hon Members did not address whether the GRC system had achieved its original purpose in the first place of ensuring minority representation in Parliament.

Third, does the PSP accept that in politics, perception, suggestion and allegation can be as impactful as reality and, in fact, can be more dangerous?

Sir, in my Adjournment Motion on racial and religious harmony that I raised almost exactly two years ago, I said that in a multiracial country, the very perception of buyers in voting along racial lines is as dangerous as the reality. Suggestions and allegations play on the minds of the electorate especially now that such a large proportion of our population has access to the Internet. They may not be actionable falsehoods. They may be couched as opinions.

We further know that allegations have a way of continuing to colour impressions even after they had been disproved. These are the realities of politics.

In the various instances where a minority candidate had stood against a Chinese candidate in a SMC, the minority had won. And there are some examples that Ms Poa had raised. But let us just consider what if one of them had lost. Would there have been suggestions, allegations and the perception that he or she had lost because of race? I would venture to say that inevitably, there would be such suggestions and the allegations and the perception of racialism and race-based voting by some. And this could lead to racial unhappiness and distrust.

The current GRC system, in my view, does not even allow such perceptions to form. And I recall just a few days ago, that the hon Member Mr Leong had himself brought up how important perception is in politics. He raised this in relation to various comments he had come across online regarding the rental of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) properties. So, Mr Leong is probably keenly aware of the need to manage perceptions in politics.

My fourth question is: does the PSP accept that Singapore's racial and religious harmony is hard fought and precious but also fragile? Does the PSP accept that even if we currently have some form of ethnic and religious modus vivendi, that this may change in the future?

I mentioned earlier that I would deal with the point on currency. If we look at the positions taken by all the political parties that I mentioned, they underscore their call for abolishing the GRC system on the fact that at this current point, Singaporeans are unlikely to vote based on race and that there is no evidence showing the same. But inherent in the fact that they qualify that this is the current situation and hence, we should consider abolishing GRCs now, is an admission that it may not have been the same in the past, that things had changed over time. And this is the fundamental flaw in their argument.

If things can change for the better, they can also change for the worst. And history, Sir, is rife with examples of people of different ethnicities, living next to each other peacefully for centuries and then, something happens, it is a small spark, a disagreement. A misunderstanding, and they descend into conflict. Countries have descended into civil war in this way.

In Singapore, we have seen flashpoints of racial unease and tension arise from time to time. This was the trigger for my Adjournment Motion on racial and religious harmony. Even something that, for some, was simple and innocuous, like the use of a cut-out standee, was seen by others as evidence of insensitivity towards ethnic minorities or discrimination and lack of understanding. A Government body was even accused of racism.

There are allegations of Chinese privilege in Singapore. There are uncles scolding interracial couples in the street.

These, Sir, are arguably small incidents, non-political matters that had, nonetheless, evoked significant feeling in minority communities as well as in the majority Chinese community.

Fifth, given all of the above, does the PSP therefore accept that abolishing the GRC system is an experiment? It is a gamble for which if we lose, we stand to jeopardise the very unity of our country. Further to the fact that all the calls for abolition of premise on current situation, they are also premised on likelihood. There is no certainty. The calls are carefully qualified. NSP uses the phrase "highly improbable"; WP's proposal is based on there being no evidence that voters vote solely on the basis of race, and "solely", of course, is in absolute term. The underlying admission is that it could be one of the considerations but not the sole consideration. And PSP has proposed alternatives that admit that there is yet a concern because they are suggesting something else that will help to ameliorate the concern over minority representation.

I imagine this Motion is timed to coincide with the Presidential Elections where we may see an ethnic minority candidate pitted against one or more Chinese candidates, based just on the fact that several nomination forms were collected. And this was referred to by Ms Poa.

Mr Leong also dedicated a large proportion of his speech to the elected Presidency despite this Motion being about GRCs. But some have been saying that if Senior Minister Tharman, the minority candidate, wins, then this shows that the GRC system has become irrelevant because he had won against one or more Chinese candidates. I do not think this is a fair or logical argument. Senior Minister Tharman can only be described as a rather exceptional creature. And Mr Murali was also mentioned but he had very considerable grassroots experience in Bukit Batok before he ran. So, these are exceptions and we should not use exceptions to make rules.

While we can aspire towards being blind to race, we should not be blind to the reality of ethnic feeling, especially those of minorities. The incidents I previously mentioned tested our unity and we must not dismiss the fact that racial politics is the fastest and most furious means to tear a society apart. It develops quickly, it spreads fast. We may be idealistically thinking that we are beyond all these things now. But we know that our racial unity is fragile. I do not think anybody would argue against this. And we know that we must work hard to keep it together.

In the event that it deteriorates for whatever reason – and we cannot discount this possibility – we must ensure that our structures of Government and elections are able to withstand changing circumstances. The question is how should our institutions be built? Fluffy, feel-good institutions that hope for the best of times or robust, resilient institutions that can withstand the worst?

My final question is: does the PSP accept that the advantages of the GRC system can be ameliorated to a satisfactory extent by reducing the sizes of GRCs and increasing the number of SMCs, while at the same time, preserving its advantages? In particular, a fuss-free minority representation in Parliament.

This brings me full circle to my first point that there is no perfect electoral system. The natural question is whether we can work with what we have to tweak it such that the disadvantages are minimised while maintaining the good in the system.

We should not throw away the baby with the bathwater. The Government has already committed to reducing the sizes of GRCs and introducing more SMCs. And as Mr Leong mentioned, this has already happened. Is this sufficient mitigation to the concerns that the PSP has raised about MPs sitting on the coat-tails of Ministers, voters voting on the "fear to lose" basis? And these may be characterised more as political concerns, not social concerns of which the GRC system was built.

Sir, to conclude, in a reply to then NMP Viswa Sadasivan, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in one of his last major speeches in Parliament, schooled this House in what can only be described as racial realpolitik. Mr Lee was replying to a Motion by the NMP that included a call to move beyond race and to treat everyone as equal.

This call to abolish the GRC system is premised on these very same ideas that Singaporeans have moved beyond race; that in voting, we will consider every candidate only on the relevant merits and be more or less blind to race. It also expects that in a situation where a minority candidate loses, as inevitably one eventually will, there will be little or no perception that race did not contribute to that loss.

In response to that the NMP's call that all are equal and should be treated equally, Mr Lee said, and I quote, "It is not reality, it is not practical, it will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle." He went on to say, "The way that Singapore has made progress is by a realistic step-by-step forward approach." He ended his speech by saying, "Perhaps, I should bring this House back to earth and remind everybody what is our starting point, what is our base and if we do not recognise where we started from and that these are our foundations, we will fail."

So, let us be realistic and make decisions not on aspiration or idealism. This Motion invites this House to embark on an experiment; a perpetual experiment if we abolish the GRC system, which we will have to head into every future election with and with every future candidate and every future contesting party must contend with. What if racial relations deteriorate over time? What if we have a troublemaker intent on using race to gain political advantage within the electoral system?

Sir, if this experiment fails, if we lose this gamble, it is the PSP that loses. It is Singapore that loses and it is our fellow Singaporeans who will lose. We should not make this gamble. And it is in this regard that I will not support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.

6.00 pm

Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful, for the opportunity to express my thoughts on the Motion presented by NCMPs Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai regarding GRCs.

GRCs are unique to Singapore's electoral landscape and require political parties to field candidates from different races in the GRC team to ensure that minority representation in Parliament is upheld. This system helps to promote inter-ethnic understanding and cooperation, enabling minority candidates to be elected to Parliament and ensuring that their voices are heard at the national level. The GRC plays an important role in maintaining Singapore's social fabric and promoting racial harmony, which is critical in a diverse nation like Singapore. And this is why I cannot support the Motion.

However, I would like to raise three points on GRCs. First, I would like to propose reducing the maximum number of individuals allowed in a GRC, reducing the area or boundaries covered by a GRC, and increasing the number of SMCs. This would increase the competition and diversity in elections. By reducing the size of GRCs, it is easier for Opposition parties to field credible candidates to contest every seat and could lead to greater voter choice and accountability for elected officials. Additionally, reducing the size of GRCs could help to promote greater representation of minority groups and communities in Parliament.

Second, I would like to propose that more seats be made available in Parliament through SMCs. Singapore's population is increasing and the needs of Singaporeans have also increased. I would encourage the Government to continue to increase the number of Parliamentarians in Parliament to increase the diversity in the discussions here today.

Thirdly, another area where GRCs can be improved is in terms of diversity. The Elections Department of Singapore requires a minimum of one MP representing a minority racial community in a GRC. While GRCs aim to achieve minority representation in Parliament, there should also be diversity in terms of gender representation as well. Mandating having at least one female representative in the GRC would increase the number of female Parliamentarians, adding to the diverse discussions and debates here.

Ultimately, Singapore is a democratic society, and the power rests with the voters, who should decide who represents them in Parliament. All politicians should earn their votes by convincing voters that they are the best candidates to represent Singaporeans' interests and values. This involves engaging with voters, listening to their concerns and communicating a clear vision for the future. This goes for every Member here – PAP, WP, PSP or not.

At this juncture, I would like to address a view shared by hon Member Hazel Poa that GRCs have the potential to enable more popular MPs to carry less popular ones into Parliament, or coat-tailing. Whether this view has merit or not, reducing the number of representatives in a GRC could increase the power of the electorate and enable Singaporeans to hold their elected representatives accountable. It is important for Parliamentarians to be accountable to their constituents and to work hard to earn their trust and support. This means being transparent about their actions and decisions, seeking feedback from voters, and working collaboratively with their stakeholders to achieve common goals.

Like what my fellow NMP Raj Joshua Thomas has mentioned, the PSP must understand that there is no perfect system and we should be striving for the best system for Singapore and Singaporeans today.

Finally, any decision on abolishing GRCs needs to be carefully considered to ensure that it promotes diversity and inclusivity without reducing representation for minority communities. It is crucial to consider the potential impacts of abolishing GRCs before making any changes to the electoral system. Any changes made should promote greater diversity and inclusivity in political representation and not inadvertently lead to a reduction in representation for minorities.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.

6.05 pm

Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join in this debate on the Motion raised by hon NCMPs, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai, that this House calls for the abolition of GRCs. To I start off, I stand not in support of the Motion, but I thank Mr Leong, as always, giving me homework to do. Because of this Motion, I must admit that I learned a lot more about GRCs.

Let me start by first looking at why GRCs in the first place – what are the key reasons for setting up GRCs; then assess if GRCs have delivered on those objectives; and finally, whether GRCs are still relevant today.

Why GRCs in the first place? According to Singapore InfoPedia, the setting up of GRCs was to ensure that Singapore’s Parliament would always be multiracial in composition and representation. The constitution stipulates that teams for candidates standing for election in a GRC must include at least one member from a minority community. GRCs were put into practice in the 1988 General Elections.

To understand better, I researched to understand the history of GRCs-in-the-making. The issue of ensuring minority ethnic representation in Parliament was first raised by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in July 1982. In addition to the concept of GRC, which was then termed the "Team MP" concept, there were actually different proposals raised by both PAP and Opposition parties at that time, which included “twin constituencies”, “giving minority voters extra vote”, “communal based constituencies”, “dividing Parliament along communal lines” and so on.

In an article that summarised the history of the making the GRC, it was said that the GRC concept was fleshed out after a long-drawn debate which included representations made to a Parliamentary Select Committee. The Committee was set up to investigate public support for the scheme and see if there was a better proposal to ensure multiracial representation in Parliament. The Committee received public submissions, 81% supporting the need to ensure a multiracial Parliament, 52% supporting to achieve it with the GRC scheme and 29% supporting the need to ensure a multiracial Parliament but with concepts other than the GRC, which were some of those examples I gave earlier.

It was a controversial issue as race was openly discussed for the first time at that time. It was controversial as critics saw it as a ploy to handicap the diminutive Opposition further at that time.

Finally, in January 1988, the GRC was tabled for Second Reading in Parliament by Mr Goh Chok Tong. There were two issues debated: the first is with regard to the principle of ensuring that Parliament is multiracial in composition because Singapore is a multiracial society; and the second is with regard to the “how to achieve it”.

The first issue was agreed to unanimously in the House, including opposition Members of Parliament at that time. The second issue of “how” was of course, hotly debated. Like already discussed by my fellow NMPs, the GRC while not perfect, was decided to have the best chance to ensure that Singapore’s Parliament would always be multiracial in composition and representation. The Bill was passed in Parliament on 18 May 1988.

Thirty-five years on, has the GRC delivered on its promise? Today in Parliament, in 2023, we have 28.3% of all elected MPs in Parliament, excluding NMPs and NCMPs who are from minority communities as compared to 19.5% back in 1987. So, 19.5%, today we have 28.3%, considering I am not even going to talk about all the positives, the achievements, and the growth that Singapore has experienced and attained in the last 35 years.

Next, is the GRC concept still relevant today? Mr Goh Chok Tong in his Second Reading speech in January 1988 to move the Bill to implement GRCs, said, “this Bill is to ensure the long-term political stability of Singapore in two ways: first by ensuring that Parliament will always be multiracial and representative of our society; and second by encouraging the practice of multiracial politics by all political parties. Singapore is a multiracial, multi-religious society, but not by chance. For Singaporeans to enjoy racial and religious harmony, the PAP and the Government consider multiracialism to be a fundamental axiom of politics in Singapore.”

These words still ring true today. Perhaps even more so today as the world is becoming more polarised and social media content carrying falsehoods and rhetoric that are not helpful for building cohesive societies, is everywhere. We can see it across the globe. Closer to home, we might recall the sad incident of a lecturer, Mr Tan, who made racist remarks against an interracial couple, and had to be taken to task. One might say that this was just an incident. But we must face the realities that Singapore is not homogenous, and our multiracial harmony must not be taken for granted.

Well, I added another question to my three questions, because I was just analysing, I have no recommendations for anybody. There is this whole big thing about a conspiracy theory that GRCs was a ploy by the PAP to handicap the Opposition.

As published in an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) article in 2013, “In fact, the winner-takes-all effect of GRC does not disadvantage credible opposition but in fact, GRC also advantages the opposition, as it can knock out an entire team of PAP candidates in one constituency, as it did in Aljunied GRC in 2011, when the Workers' Party dislodged the PAP slate consisting of three political officeholders and one newbie touted as a future Minister.” I believe the "newbie" made it.

The results of the GE 2011 and then GE 2020 should put any conspiracy theory to bed. With the GRC concept, all the political parties need to have the gravitas to be able to attract a strong diverse slate of men and women that reflects multiracial Singapore; to contest in elections on a multiracial platform and not with communal or racial undertone; and when they win, be part of a multiracial Parliament that represents our society.

So, it looks like the key issue is perhaps the size of the GRC and the number of SMCs, which I am sure the Government is listening very carefully to and will make the right call.

For me, before I close, if you may indulge me as I share a few thoughts. I cannot believe I am making my last speech in Parliament on such a matter. But still, please indulge me.

Firstly, I think conspiracy theories and rumour-mongering not backed up by facts and data, and which is plainly untruths, should not be entertained. This is likened to poisoning our own body, that is, Singapore our country and our home, and causing self-harm to ourselves as a nation. I say this not only for politicians, but actually for all Singaporeans.

Secondly, it would do each of us well to remember that we did not get to where we are today on our own but on the collective determination of our founding leaders, Pioneer and Merdeka generations, and the successive generations of leaders in Government, in politics, in Public Service, in civil society and in business, to survive post-Independence and then to build and grow to become the Singapore that we are today, a nation we can call our own home. Let us not mess it up for our children.

Thirdly, Parliament is serious business of governing a country. At the same time, it is political, and those involved can oftentimes feel like it is a thankless job, one that is subject to public scrutiny and even unscrupulous character assassination at the will of dirty politics. To ensure that our Parliament continues to govern well, we will need good leaders to step forward, to serve Singaporeans, to do it out of love for Singapore, for the common good for all in Singapore.

Singapore is a multiracial, multi-religious society not by chance and we need to guard our multiracial harmony very carefully. We will always be a work in progress and we cannot take it for granted.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the Motion for abolishing GRCs. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

6.16 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not the first time that this House heard the debate in relation to the merits of having a GRC system which was implemented in 1988.

I do recognise though that there will always be a group of young Singaporeans who will be reaching the age of majority to vote in the next GE. Naturally, they would not have had the chance to follow the debate that led to the implementation of this GRC system some 35 years ago.

Hence, I do see some utility in having this topic raised here, once again, in this House to provide our younger voters an opportunity to appreciate the reasons for the system and the arguments presented on both sides of the aisle as to whether the system continues to be fit for purpose. For that reason, I thank the hon NCMPs, Ms Poa and Mr Leong, for providing me with the chance to speak on this Motion standing in their names.

Sir, I would like to make a case for the GRC system to be retained. I will draw from my own experience in standing for elections as a PAP candidate in an SMC as well as in a GRC. Before I do so, I would like to make three preliminary points.

First, based on the speeches that I have heard thus far, I assume that all in this House are united in the wish to see adequate representation of minority races in this House.

Second, on the quintessential matter of managing race relations, the preferred approach of the Government must be to deal with the facts as they are. Where the assessment is that race continues to matter in our society, the approach of the Government cannot be to blithely ignore it but to address the issue head on.

This is a point that the then hon MP, Mr Chiam See Tong, who was often referred to as a doyen amongst Opposition MPs, agreed to in the Select Committee hearing on the GRC system in 1988.

Third and finally, I accept that the GRC system has its shortcomings. In fact, in my research, I noted that the Government, when it introduced the GRC system in this House, also candidly acknowledged that it is not a perfect system.

One shortcoming perceived among political observers and academics is that the GRC system requires minority representation at the point of elections but not during the subsistence or the tenure of MPs. This is a point that has been settled by the highest Court of our land in interpreting the legal provisions setting up the GRC system in 1988.

The explanation of the Government that was expressly noted by the Court is that the system must ensure that the candidates from the minority race should not be able to hold the other candidates in the team to ransom to force a re-election. This is a point that the hon NCMP, Ms Poa, raised in her speech.

Whilst there is logic in the reasoning, I do accept, as she did, that not all fellow Singaporeans feel comfortable with it. At the end of the day, though, whilst the system is not perfect, the GRC system does reflect the single most important priority for Singaporeans – that the highest law-making power of our land rests in the hands of representatives from all races in order that the way we order our society reflects the interests of all.

Singapore cannot and will not be fractured along racial lines, not just because we ensure that there is an adequate number of elected representatives from minority races but also because the way we do so refuses to allow politics to be conducted on racial lines.

Ms Poa came up with two ideas – the equivalent of the NCMP system as well as a Parliament based on proportional system. She suggested that there is no need to rush with the consideration of these ideas. But what is noteworthy is that this Motion calls for this House to abolish the GRC system. It would be irresponsible for this House to abolish the GRC system and then consider what should be the system to replace it.

The GRC system, to me, is a most underrated structure in giving Singapore politics its unique character. It is a paradox that both elevates race and takes away its sting. The first, it does by ensuring minority representation; and the second, it does by removing the leverages of communal politics.

To illustrate, I now turn to my personal experience.

To my knowledge, I am the second minority candidate that the PAP fielded in an SMC since the implementation of the GRC system in 1988. In fact, I was fielded twice.

When I stood for elections in the 2016 by-election at Bukit Batok SMC, I was not exactly a newbie. I had the privilege of serving in Bukit Batok as a community leader and a PAP branch activist for about 16 years.

My mentor was the late Dr Ong Chit Chung, then MP for Bukit Batok between 1988 and 2008 when he passed away. I was his Branch Secretary. During the three years after he passed away, between 2008 and 2011, when the next GE was held, I worked very closely with our community leaders to hold things together at our constituency.

Also, by 2016, I managed to get some political experience under my belt. Between 2011 and 2015, I served as the Branch Chairman of the PAP Paya Lebar Branch. In my capacity as Branch Chairman, I gained a tremendous amount of experience in leading both political and community outreach programmes for the benefit of residents there. I also stood for elections as part of a team of five in Aljunied GRC in GE 2015. We lost the elections but gained much in terms of practical experience and insights.

So, even though I was going into the 2016 by-election as a first-time candidate at an SMC, I had some lines of experience. In the result, the people of Bukit Batok voted me in as their MP in May 2016.

I would highlight that during the campaign, I had to address the very fair point as to whether, being not conversant in Mandarin, I would be able to engage Mandarin-speaking residents. I did not see this as a racial issue but a practical one. I appreciated that Mandarin-speaking residents would naturally be concerned that if I am not able to understand them, I would have difficulty in representing their interests.

As it turned out, I was able to convince my constituents that I would work harder to overcome the language barrier with my team of volunteers. It also helped that I could hold a simple conversation in Mandarin.

By the time of the 2020 GE, the PAP decided to field me again at Bukit Batok SMC. As an incumbent candidate, I had established a record of service which I put forth before my constituents for their consideration. I had a tough election battle in GE 2020. In the result, I was fortunate to be returned as MP for Bukit Batok once again, albeit with a reduced majority.

To be elected twice as an MP from a minority race in Bukit Batok SMC is certainly one of the high points in my life. To me, I read it as the constituents of Bukit Batok acknowledging that, overall, having regard to my character, record and experience, the fact that I was from a minority race was not an issue to them.

To some, this may seem to argue that we do not need the GRC system, since a minority candidate can win an SMC of majority Chinese. This was something that Ms Poa alluded to in her speech. They may also quote Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam who led his team to secure the highest levels of support in a GRC in GEs twice – also something raised in the debate today. They may say that voters are fair-minded, can see beyond race and we should respect this.

Voters are indeed fair-minded. But having said that, Iet me show you the realpolitik on the ground – attempts to politicise race issues during both campaigns at Bukit Batok SMC which, thankfully, failed.

In the first campaign in 2016, the situation was concerning enough for Prime Minister Lee, as the Secretary-General of the PAP, to speak out against online comments and whispers that went around Bukit Batok asking Chinese voters to cast their ballots along racial lines on 30 April 2016. This was widely reported in the press.

Mr Lee said, "it is not unknown for racial sentiments to emerge and be exploited during election campaign." In particular, he said that he came across comments in the social media making the point about race in "quite an open way." During a press interview on the same day, I frankly acknowledged that race issues are present in our society but expressed my confidence that I can overcome these issues with my team.

In the second campaign in 2020, I continued to encounter politicisation along racial lines. Let me illustrate this through a picture. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I display a photo on the LED screens?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]

Mr Murali Pillai: The LED screens show a blown-up photo of a flyer used in my campaign in GE 2020 that was defaced. I think hon Members looking at this slide will straightway appreciate the racial undertones quite quickly. The graffiti was an attempt to make me even more Indian, as if my name and skin colour were too understated.

I got this photo from a resident who was upset about the matter. She pointed out to me that there was a Chinese character written over my chest which was partially hidden through colouring over the character. The character is "die". When I had occasion to review the photo whilst drafting this speech, I realised the same character was written on both hands, too.

How Indian must I be to be oblivious to a Chinese calling for my death? And yet, perhaps fortunately, how Singaporean can I be to get the job done and meet my key performance indicators (KPIs)?

When I saw the attempts to politicise the elections on racial lines, I made a decision not to be distracted. I focused on what I believed were the priorities of my constituents.

Hon Members would recall that at the Opening of this Session of Parliament following GE 2020, I said that all of us in politics must grow the skin of a rhino and the heart of a lion. You now know what precipitated my remarks.

When I stood for elections in Aljunied GRC in 2015, I certainly did not see similar attempts at racial politicisation. I personally think that the reason for this is attributable to the fact that I stood as part of a team in a GRC. It would be difficult for any person to exploit matters along racial lines during elections when the political parties in the contest fielded minority candidates in their respective teams. In a GRC fight, we are in it together. The GRC is a compound, not a mixture that can pried away, one element from another.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the basis of my experience having fought in three elections at a GRC and SMC, I would respectfully suggest that the GRC system continues to be important to ensure that we will be able to get appropriate representation in this House from minority races.

The fact that I won two elections in an SMC does not provide grounds to do away with the GRC system. I pointed out that I was not a newbie. However, even then, I faced coordinated attempts to politicise the campaign along racial lines, which were rebuffed by Bukit Batok voters. Thankfully, I had thick skin and I was able to focus on my campaign.

About a week ago, I shared with my elder daughter, a teenager, that I will be speaking on race issues in connection with this Motion. In response, she told me that during the 2020 hustings – she would have been in primary school then – she came across an outright racist remark about me on Twitter.

She was upset about the matter. She, however, decided not to tell me about it because she felt that I was already going through a tough election. She was protecting me at a time when actually it is the father's duty to protect the child.

I looked at her carefully when she told me this. She had a habit of biting her lips when she was upset. Thankfully, she did not. She is now at peace, although she had to grow up much faster as a result.

I ask hon Members from the majority race in this House. Imagine that you are from a minority race. Would you want to put your own son or daughter through an election in a situation where there is a good probability that your child may be excoriated simply on account of his or her race?

If the GRC system is abolished, we will have to contend with the scenario that good people from minority races, knowing that there is a danger of elections being politicised along racial lines, may just decide this is too much trouble and not run for elections. They will not be prepared to be made fun of along racial lines.

Is that what we want? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said that the Singaporean approach to difficult issues is to “deal with the facts as they are” and not as we wish them to be. We have made progress from the days of race riots, but we need to be honest and realistic about race relations always.

I can speak simple Mandarin, I can have political experience, I can rise above racial needling, but after all this, let us be honest, I am still “too Indian” for some voters.

There may be a time when race may not matter. But that is not now. Until that day, we will still need the GRC. Because in a GRC, you are not going to go up against any particular race, but a coalition of us, bound together by the collective interests of the GRC and of Singapore. Each of us is constitutive of this group, this compound that forms a protective coating against racial attacks, from wherever they come, and against any of us from any race. Only then, we can hope to succeed, regardless of race, language or religion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

6.31 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened carefully to all the speeches made, particularly the ones made by Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa to move this Motion. But perhaps, I should just clarify before I stray out of order, that this Motion calls for the abolition of the GRC, and not about the Elected Presidency. Because I appreciate Ms Hazel Poa's various ideas and suggestions, but I was a bit confused by Mr Leong's speech that spent the greater bulk of his comment on the Elected Presidency. So, if I stick narrowly to the Motion, I think I should confine my comments to the debate on the GRC today.

I would also like to thank Mr Murali for sharing his very personal experiences and reflections. I would like to thank Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, Mr Mark Chay and Ms Janet Ang for their very incisive, heartfelt and non-partisan views.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Motion put forth today, calling for GRCs to be abolished, comes down to the fundamental philosophy and principles that underpin why this House had agreed to have the GRC system in the first place. The question is: do we, as a people and as a system, believe in ensuring that the Parliament, our highest legislative body of the land, is representative of a multiracial Singapore? Or, as Mr Raj Joshua Thomas said, are we willing to take the risk of rule by majority without safeguards for our minority communities, without safeguards against racial politics that can easily tear apart the fabric of our nation?

These are the fundamental issues in discussing this Motion and it forms the basis of why we have the GRCs. So, I ask all Members of this House to carefully consider this when we vote on the Motion later.

Members have also given their views on the design of the GRC system, such as the sizes and number of GRCs that we should have. I will address these issues in my speech. But let me first address the Motion put before us, because this is not a Motion for reforming GRCs. This is a Motion that calls for the GRC system to be abolished altogether. It is the principle of the GRC system that is at stake here today.

Finally, I shall conclude by making some observations on how we learn from the experiences of other countries when we design, operate and evolve our own systems, but how we should not copy blindly. We will always seek to develop models, and we must always seek to develop models that best meet our needs and circumstances.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me start with the two fundamental considerations for our predecessors when they introduced the GRC system – first, to ensure that this House reflects the multiracial make-up of our people; and second, that our politics do not become racially charged. Both are important.

When Independence was thrust upon us, we could easily have chosen to organise ourselves based on majoritarian rule. But we did not. Instead, since Independence, we have always been sensitive to the needs of our minorities, especially for the majority to exercise greater responsibility to ensure that the rights and interests of our minorities are not neglected.

In our Constitution, we recognise and safeguard the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore. We also clearly state, “It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore”.

We prohibited discrimination against citizens on the grounds of race. We instituted the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, or PCMR in short, to ensure that new laws passed by Parliament do not prejudice any racial or religious community. We put in place guardrails because we value multiracialism.

The GRC system is an extension of this philosophy – to minimise the risk that this House no longer represents our multiracial demography and ride roughshod over the interests of our minority communities. Our GRC system guarantees that Parliament will always be multiracial and representative of the make-up of our society.

Next, because the GRC system requires constituencies to be contested by multiracial teams of candidates, political parties and their candidates have to take a moderate, multiracial approach when campaigning instead of a communal or racially extreme approach. This means we minimise the risk that any party can try to win votes by playing the race card. Ms Poa’s alternative suggestions of minority NCMP and proportional representation do not address this point and I will come back to explain this in a while.

This issue matters, especially in hotly contested seats where an appeal to race could shape the outcome of a contest. This is very real, as the hon Member for Bukit Batok had just shared.

This matters and will continue to matter, even if a GRC loses its minority Member, through illness or resignation, during the Parliamentary term. Because any party that wants to be re-elected will know the importance of winning the support of all races. This is an important safeguard to prevent our politics from becoming racial.

So, contrary to what was claimed by Ms Poa, the GRC system does not divide us by race. In fact, it is designed to disincentivise the appeal of race in politics to minimise the chances and leverage that people can use race in an electoral contest.

Those are the core issues and the fundamental issues. Let me now deal with the second-order executional issues.

First is the claim that GRCs unfairly benefit the incumbent by tapping on the “star power” in each team. Otherwise, in Ms Poa's words, it is known as the “coat-tail” argument. I do not think that “star power” is the preserve of the incumbent. Various speakers before me have shared that. One can argue that the “star power” of Mr Low Thia Khiang would have contributed much to the Workers’ Party’s electoral success in Aljunied in 2011. Likewise, maybe you would also agree with me that few would deny that the “star power” of Dr Tan Cheng Bock has contributed much to PSP's showing in West Coast in 2020, leading to both Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa being the two NCMPs in our House today.

Conversely, the “star power” can cut the other way. Should a member of the team, Minister or otherwise, become a liability, he or she can also affect the electoral performance of the entire team to the team’s detriment.

Second is the size of the GRC. Various Members have suggested for the GRC size to be smaller or having more SMCs. As Members have pointed out, the average size of the GRC has come down and the number of SMCs has gone up in the last two elections. There was no six-member GRC in GE2020.

And I want everyone to know that the Government understands the sentiments of our people, and I am sure the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) here can appreciate the aspirations of our people. Ultimately, the EBRC will take into consideration various factors, including what was mentioned today, to decide on the boundaries. It is not for the Government of the day to decide, as suggested by Mr Leong. The Government of the day has made clear our position. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has made clear our position. And it is the collective decision of the Government of the day, not any particular individual and not whether is it Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong or otherwise.

Next, I want to touch on this other point, which is related to the size and shape of the electoral division. Mr Leong suggested that every of our divisions is rather homogenous in its characteristics. Indeed, so. The question is: are we better served if our divisions are not microcosms of the country but, instead, across our island, we have divisions that have very unique and skewed characteristics, and maybe even along racial lines?

If so, what kind of outcomes do we expect from such electoral contests? The reason and the advantage of all divisions being microcosms – plus or minus a bit – of the national characteristics allows everyone to focus our selection of the candidates to represent them based on our collective national interest, and not on sectoral characteristics or interests. Consider this carefully. In other countries, they have gone exactly that way, where electoral contests are fought on narrow sectoral interests or characteristics.

However, perhaps I have strayed. We can debate and evolve these features. It does not detract from the underlying fundamental reasons of having the GRC system to ensure that our Parliament remains multiracial and our politics non-racial.

Third is on the need to call a by-election to fill a position vacated by a minority or any other Member. This has been debated and clarified in this House and I will not repeat all the arguments.

The Courts have settled the law on this. Members may wish to refer to the 2017 High Court decision to dismiss the application filed by Dr Wong Souk Yee for a by-election to be held in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC after Mdm Halimah Yacob resigned her seat as Member of Parliament to stand for the Presidential Election. Dr Wong subsequently filed an appeal over the ruling. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no requirement for a by-election to be called in Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC after Mdm Halimah Yacob resigned her seat as Member of Parliament to stand for the Presidential Election.

In a GRC contest, the voters vote for the team and it is the GRC team that represents the GRC and all its constituents in Parliament. Not requiring a by-election to fill the position vacated by a minority or any other Member is to prevent any single team member holding the rest to ransom by threatening to step down, as Members have also pointed out.

This also does not detract from the fact that no one can hope to gain electoral advantage by playing on race, as the team would still be required to be multiracial in their approach and advocacy of Singaporeans' interests to appeal to all races in the next election.

Fourth, the claim that the GRC system has stunted the growth of the Opposition. As Mr Leong pointed out, before the introduction of the GRC system, we had only two Opposition Members in 1984. After the 2020 GE, we now have 10 Opposition Members elected to this House as well as two NCMPs.

I think it would be fair to say that the number of Opposition Members in this House ultimately depends more on the quality of the candidates, and whether they are able to secure the support of the Singaporeans to be elected to Parliament, than just whether they are competing in a SMC or GRC.

If PSP truly believes that the GRC system disadvantages you, then I find it odd that you sent 19 of your 24 candidates to contest in four GRCs in the most recent GE, instead of contesting in all the SMCs possible. Unless the constraint was due to the inability to attract sufficient quality minority candidates. If so, then this is precisely what the GRC system seeks to do – prevent single-race party campaigning along racial lines.

Fifth, why not have other forms of proportional representation system to ensure minority representation in this House, as suggested by Ms Poa? This issue has been debated extensively in this House, and I will, again, not repeat all the arguments. Members may wish to refer to the Hansard, in particular the speech by the Prime Minister on 27 January 2016, during the debate on the President's Address.

In essence, a proportional representation system will result in parties based on race and religion, or a special interest. Some parties will be incentivised to build their base around a particular interest in order to win seats, rather than to appeal to a broad majority of voters.

Ms Poa also suggested having an NCMP scheme for minorities, so that minority candidates who lost the contest in SMCs but have the highest percentage of votes can be appointed as NCMPs. I thought deeply about this suggestion. But unfortunately, I do not think it will achieve our objectives of ensuring Parliament is multiracial and minimising the chances of candidates and parties playing the race card. Let me explain.

First, if we only have SMCs, there is no guarantee that there will even be enough minority candidates among the losing candidates. If we only have SMCs, there is no guarantee that we will even have enough minority candidates among the losing candidates.

Second, more importantly, the NCMP system comes into play when the ruling party has a large majority in Parliament. By Ms Hazel's suggestion, it will come into play when the ruling party has a large majority without minority Members, or with very few minority Members. Would you not agree with me? If that is the case, Ms Poa's proposed system will then bring in the unsuccessful minority candidates who performed the best. And what will be the result? We would then be likely to have, as Mr Raj Joshua Thomas have pointed out, a predominantly Chinese party in power, with minority Members or NCMPs in the Opposition. Parliament would then be divided along racial lines. Our political divide will be along racial lines. And this, if I may suggest, will be most dangerous for Singapore.

Various Opposition Members have also previously criticised the NCMP scheme as being a second-class MP scheme. If this is true, can we imagine a situation where the minorities are all or largely in the NCMPs or party list as a group, while the rest or a vast majority of the elected MPs being the racial majority? Is this a better outcome for us in this House? Is this a better outcome for Singapore?

So, I have thought deeply about your suggestions, but unfortunately, I do not think it will solve our problems. If not, it will complicate things even more.

At the beginning of my speech, I highlighted the twin objectives of the GRC system, and they bear reminding – one, to ensure that our Parliament will always be representative of the racial make-up of our society; and two, to ensure that our politics do not become racially charged. These two objectives are equally important and Ms Poa's suggestions will unfortunately not ensure that our politics do not become racially charged.

Let me move on to another important set of issues. PSP made the argument that we should move beyond race. And Workers' Party (WP) says that "we are confident that Singaporeans do not vote solely on race". We agree. I am sure Singaporeans do not vote solely on the basis of race, but that is not the question before us.

The question before us is: "should race be a critical factor in their decision, even if it is not the only factor?" And to PSP's and some other Opposition suggestions that we should move beyond race, we all agree with this aspiration. I am sure I have the support of every Member of this House to support this, that we all aspire to move beyond race. Indeed, I will be the first to aspire to the day where we have a Singaporean tribe, regardless of race, language and religion, that we have all gone beyond race.

We recite it in our pledge every day – "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion". We recite it every day. One united people, regardless of race, language or religion. But having an aspiration is not the same as it being a reality today. Members may wish to revisit the exchange recorded in the Hansard between the late-Mr Lee Kuan Yew and then-NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan on this issue on 19 August 2009, as referenced by Mr Raj Joshua Thomas in his speech. This was the speech where many of us learned the phrase "highfalutin".

More recently in 2021, a survey conducted by CNA and Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) found that there is still in-group preference with respondents preferring those who are racially similar to themselves for many roles. And I will personally be very careful and not ignore the realities that we are still confronting today.

Many Members have shared your own personal stories. Are Singaporeans racists? No. Even if there are a few bad hats, they do not represent us as a people. Are Singaporeans beyond race? I think we have gotten nearer today than yesterday and I am confident we will be even nearer tomorrow. But are we there yet? So let us, and we will, endeavour and commit to making progress continuously. Are all race issues beyond us? I think we all know the answers in our hearts.

I do not take this lightly because I have to deal with them personally, sometimes in life and death situations. Let me share my own personal experiences.

6.55 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: My apologies, Minister Chan. Just before you do that, we need an extension of time before 7.00 pm. So, could I invite Deputy Leader?

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan.

6.56 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me continue.

I do not take this issue lightly because I have to deal with them personally, sometimes in life and death situations. Members of this House who are running their constituencies will know how, sometimes, neighbour issues can spiral out of control because of a racial element. We all do not like to hear this, we all do not like to talk about this and we wish that it does not exist. But we know, we have to deal with some issues and we hope that we will have to deal with it less and less in time to come.

But let me share my own personal experience. I have commanded units before, at various levels, of various sizes. In one of my commands, on the first day of assumption of my command, a minority group of soldiers wanted to go absent without official leave (AWOL), at least five of them. If the five of them had gone AWOL, it would have been a critical incident in the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) lexicon. It would have to be escalated all the way up to MINDEF headquarters. The first day of my command. I had not even had the chance to do anything. I was fortunate. I had a regimental sergeant major (RSM) from the same racial group. He told me: "Sir, no worries. Let me deal with this. I will bring them back." It was something that he could do that I could not have done and certainly, not on the first day of my command.

Another incident during my command, at the passing of my late father-in-law, I was recalled from overseas one day earlier, after the training. As my family was grieving for the loss of my late father-in-law, I received a report that a racial riot could soon break out in my unit, because there were allegations that there had been racial discrimination, injustice, and unfairness in the unit. Just allegations. And I have been with my men, through and through. We promised each other that this will be a unit that will take care of one another, through hell and high water. But it can be stirred up.

In 2013, after the Little India riot broke out, many of us in the leadership had sleepless nights. We wondered whether we would have a repeat of what happened in the 1960s, where the suggestions and allegations of racial problems would spiral out of control. Not just only in Little India, but to every other corner possible in Singapore.

It was a moment that I asked myself, if this goes out of control, will we lose it all again?

These are life and death issues. Hence, I urge Members to have a care when discussing racial issues. They are not abstract, philosophical issues. They are real issues, with real consequences, sometimes of life and death.

These are issues where other mature democracies have to grapple with and many involving life and death situations. The visceral emotions, once stirred, have long lasting consequences. The wounds and scars can be deep. Even with time, the wounds may never really heal completely and the scars will remain.

Today, we have made progress. Every exception that is raised in this House is a point for us to cheer. But as mentioned, exceptions do not make the rule.

The rule is not whether Senior Minister Tharman can get elected or not. The rule is, all else being equal, when someone of Senior Minister Tharman's calibre goes to the polls, does it matter, even at the margins, that his race predominate or is considered as one of the factors although it is not the sole factor?

The GRC system is thus a safeguard to ensuring that every GRC will have at least one minority candidate competing as a team and as a result, Parliament is multiracial, and we do our best to take race and religion out of the contest. It does not prevent parties from filling more than one minority ethnic candidate in a GRC. The PAP and the WP have done so. I welcome the PSP to do so too.

What the GRC system seeks to prevent is for parties to campaign singularly for one race and for Parliament to be represented by one race and have all our minorities in another system, whatever we call it. This is not the Singapore that we want and aspire to be.

Mr Deputy Speaker, before I restate our position on the GRC Motion, I want to make one final point to conclude.

The point is this – we are a young nation. With our unique history, circumstances and needs, we must find and evolve our own way of governance to meet our needs. We must be bold to evolve our own system and processes where needed – from the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) to GRC, from CPF to HDB, from the the Economic Development Board (EDB) to National Service (NS).

We must not degenerate into a state where we just blindly copy other people's systems, especially when those systems are struggling to find the right answers to their own issues. We must not get into a state whereby we come to this House and tell people to experiment on this system or that system when it has been proven that those systems cannot even deliver a better outcome than ours.

I will put it to this House. Many of us on the front bench do not believe that we got here by being an exceptional nation just by copying others. We certainly do not believe that we will continue to be exceptional and able to distinguish ourselves by just copying others.

Yes, certainly, we will continue to learn from other people, but we must be fair. When we look at other people's systems and bring them to this House, let us also tell fellow Singaporeans the pluses, the minuses of their systems, of how their systems have performed in their respective countries and, most importantly, even if it has performed relatively well in their country, would it apply to our context? That is our job as Members of this House.

If governance is just about copying best practices elsewhere, we will not be spending so much time trying to find our own unique solutions and models that best serve Singapore and Singaporeans, not just in this generation but also for generations to come.

Just last week, the US Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action programmes in universities. The reactions in America have been sharply polarised. To some, this was the right thing to do. You can only end racial discrimination by being colour-blind. To others, this was completely unrealistic and did not take into account the discrimination that blacks and other minority groups continue to face.

We do not judge other systems – they will have to find their own answers to their own issues – nor do we profess that we have found the perfect system for ourselves. We certainly will not promote our system to others without context, understanding and appreciation of their circumstances.

So, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas is right. There is no perfect system. But which is the least imperfect system that serves us best, that serves Singapore and Singaporeans best in this generation and going forward?

But we do not need to be shy to say that our system has largely delivered satisfactory outcomes for our people and country – peace, stability, good governance, multiracial politics and an ethos of stewardship and care for future generations. We have also largely achieved a cohesive society and a non-racially divided Parliament.

These did not just happen fortuitously. They came about because we carefully designed our system to manage the possible race issues that could have been politicised and divided us. By any measure, I suggest that we have not done too badly compared to others.

We will continue to learn from others, but we must never be afraid to chart our own destiny in our own ways. We will continue to evolve our system according to our needs.

I really appreciate Mr Raj Joshua Thomas' comment and Ms Janet Ang's comment about business in this House. I take it to heart.

This House is about governance, of how we run our country. This House is not about experimentation. It is not about just copying other people. If we get it wrong, we lose everything that we have built over all these years. Singaporeans lose everything that we have built. We will not have the chance to strive towards the Singaporean Tribe that I described, regardless of race, language and religion.

It is not a gamble. It is not an experiment. It is serious business.

Finally, let me reiterate why we will not and should not support this Motion.

To support this Motion is to go against our founding philosophy of ensuring that the interests of our minority communities are accounted for.

To support this Motion is to risk having no or inadequate multiracial representation in the highest legislative body of the land.

To support this Motion is to leave to chance the emergence of racial politics and forgo our continued progress towards a system where race is not to be a determining factor in electoral contest.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you may just allow me to saw a few words in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We are a young nation, with our unique history, circumstances and needs. We must find and evolve our own way of governance to meet our needs. We must be bold to evolve our own systems and processes where needed. For example, PCMR, HDB, EDB, GRC, CPF and NS. We must not degenerate into a state where we just blindly copy other people’s systems, especially when it is demonstrated that they could not achieve better results, even for themselves in their own circumstances.

Nor do we profess that we have found the perfect system for ourselves. But we need not be shy to say that our system has largely delivered satisfactory outcomes for our country and people, that is, peace, stability, good governance and an ethos of stewardship and care for future generations. We have largely achieved a cohesive society and a non-racially divided Parliament.

These did not just happen fortuitously. They came about because we have carefully designed our systems to manage the possible race issues that could have been politicised and divided us.

By any measure, we have not done too badly compared to others. Today, including the Opposition, when we go overseas, we feel proud. This also demonstrated that we did not do too badly.

We will continue to learn from others, but we are also not afraid to chart our own destiny in our own ways. We will certainly continue to evolve as our needs change.

Finally, let me reiterate why we will not and should not support this Motion. To support this Motion is to go against our founding philosophy of ensuring that the interests of our minority communities are accounted for. To support this Motion is to risk having no or inadequate multiracial representation in the highest legislative body of the land. To support this Motion is to leave to chance the emergence of racial politics and forgo our continued progress towards a system where race is not to be a determining factor in electoral contest.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the PAP will vote against this Motion to abolish the GRC because it fundamentally goes against what we have been trying to do in building our country as a nation that we can be all proud of for all these years since our Independence. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, you have a clarification?

7.13 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his comments and the various points that he agrees with us. First, as I have said, today's Motion is to abolish the GRC. It is not to reform the GRC. So, later, when we vote, it will be on this basis – to abolish the GRC. Because to abolish the GRC, then what do we put in place to safeguard multiracial representation in Parliament? And what do we do to safeguard racial politics from emerging again?

So, I am glad to hear that Mr Pritam Singh – and the WP by extension, I presume – agrees with our two objectives: to have multiracial representation in this Parliament and to do our utmost to keep racial politics away from our political contests. Just as the Member has mentioned, today, nobody can try to go to the starting line without a minority. And that is significant. That is significant. I am glad that the Member acknowledged that the GRC has helped us to get to where we are.

Are there other systems that we can think of, that we can evolve? Certainly. Even in the short history of our country, we have constantly tried to evolve different systems to meet our needs according to the times. And we must continue to do so. Any system that does not evolve according to the needs of the time will be obsolete, and that does not serve Singapore and Singaporeans well.

So, we can continue to discuss how we can evolve the systems and what are the executional issues. But today, the vote on this Motion hinges on this: to abolish the GRC. Do we abolish the GRCs because we do not agree, as the PSP does, with the philosophy? Or do we abolish the GRC because we agree with the fundamentals, but there are some things in the execution that you think that we can evolve? That is the crux.

The second issue that I would like to respond to is this. Like you, I am very happy to see the progress that we have made in overcoming incidents and issues related to race and religion. And we agree. We have made much progress and that is why I said, I am confident we will make even more progress and we will endeavour to continue to make progress. That is our collective aim in this House. No one is claiming that we have not made progress. I did not hear anyone saying in this House that this is no longer an issue that we need to consider at all. I think that would be a fair representation.

And if we all agree that this is something that we still need to consider, then I think let us have a care to see how we evolve and design our systems. We should not fall into this trap where we see the outcome, a satisfactory outcome, and we say "Voila! We have the outcome that we want and, therefore, we do not need all these measures that have brought us or contributed to the current outcome". It is like saying that on the roads, our traffic is generally safe because we have traffic rules. And when the traffic is relatively safe, then one makes the argument that we should not have so many traffic rules or traffic rules at all. I do not think we are making that argument. We are all here united in the recognition that we have made progress and we want to make further progress. But we are also under no illusion that this is a job done.

And if I may look at the experiences of other countries, some countries have spent hundred over years trying to overcome this issue and they have not achieved anywhere near even our own system. So, all I am saying is, just have a care. And I thank Mr Pritam Singh for acknowledging that the GRC system has contributed to the development of our multi-party, multiracial democracy.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai, do you have a clarification? Because the final right of reply comes from Ms Hazel Poa, your colleague.

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I am not sure you even posed a question to Minister Chan in relation to your second point. You have asked whether —

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I have asked —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Hold on, Mr Leong. I think you have asked whether Minister Chan agrees with your first point. Sorry, can you pose your question in relation to the second point, please, Mr Leong?

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, perhaps, we hear from Minister Chan on these two points. I think the second point is a very, very broad question to the Minister. Minister Chan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, Ms Hazel Poa has the final right of reply. So, I invite you to make a short clarification. Oh, my apologies. Mr Leong, can I kindly invite you to take your seat? Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.

7.37 pm

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

Mr Pritam Singh: I am wondering what this session is turning into – an examination? First, Mr Leong asked Minister Chan about the 1984 speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker: To be fair, Mr Singh, you raised the phrase.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister.

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Two points, Mr Deputy Speaker. Number one, WP is prepared to contest any constituency on an SMC basis. That is our position in the manifesto, we have laid it out. We went to elections in 2020 with that in our manifesto.

The second point on the EBRC, I think it will be helpful, at least, going forward, for the Government to put its weight and significant influence behind a proposal to the EBRC to please produce a more detailed report when boundaries are redrawn.

I think in the past, we had boundary reports which extended to 30 to 50 pages, explaining why boundaries were redrawn in particular ways. The latest EBRC report, I think is in the single digits for the number of pages. It just tells you this constituency, this number, that is, it was this number; now, it is this number, this is the new boundary, finished.

So, you are going to continue to have cynicism about the GRC system and it is not going to stop. Insofar as this Motion is concerned, I think we have laid our position out quite evidently.

I have given my views on where the GRC system has been helpful for society and I think it is important for me to state that. But it would be remiss of me not to highlight to the public and to Singaporeans at large, why the WP takes the position that it does.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, I am mindful that your colleague has the final right of reply and she is down for a 40-minute speech. So, I ask for the clarification to be short, please.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you. I read her speech. It would not be 40 minutes. [Laughter.]

Just to answer Minister Chan's question, first of all, the first point you made about the minority representation, taking this factor out of the politics, on all these, in this House, I think all of us are all aligned. There is no different between PAP and PSP. I cannot speak for WP, of course.

On the second point, I was trying to give you an examination question, but I think you failed.

In 1980s, just now I mentioned, it was a very significant period for Singapore politics. Because in 1981, Mr JB Jeyaratnam won the by-election. Before that, from 1968 to 1981, it was 100% PAP representation in Parliament. As a result, as a student, when we read the newspaper and we listened to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's views and all that, it came right in and today, I would not forget. And I quote, from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, 1984, "One man, one vote is a most difficult form of government. From time to time, the results can be erratic. People are sometimes fickle. They get bored with stable, steady improvements in life and in a reckless moment, they vote for a change for change’s sake."

7.44 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Point of Order, Deputy Speaker. I think he is making a fresh speech. It has nothing to do with clarification on the Minister's speech.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, no, no; I am asking the Minister whether he knows some of the thinking —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, let me deal with Mr Lim's point. I will allow you to go on for a little longer but please ask your question. I think this derives from your second point from your previous clarification where you were asking Minister Chan essentially to guess what was in your mind. Now, you are sharing what is in your mind with a quote from Mr Lee. So, after that quote, please, then put your question to the Minister.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. My question to the Minister is that the thinking of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time is proof to the fact that the GRC system, at least the perception of many Singaporeans like myself, is not just due to minority representation. It is due to his reservation also – maybe, say, 50-50 – of the one man, one vote system. That is why, put it under the group voting, vote as a group and not one man, one vote.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong, please kindly take your seat.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Does Minister Chan understand my question?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think Minister Chan understands your question that whether or not it remains a one man-one vote; or one lady-one-vote. Minister Chan.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, maybe I will just make two points in response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

7.54 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan.

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

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

Let me go to the substantive points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: I thank the Minister for his questions. First, let me address the issue about the NCMP suggestion. In our proposal, what we said was that if we do not have enough minority candidates elected, then the NCMP for minorities will be chosen from those with the highest percentage of votes, no restriction on party. So, just those with the highest votes; it could be the ruling party, or it could be the Opposition party.

Secondly, about me being mathematically not correct, I beg to differ. In our proposal, I agree that even though we mandate a multi-racial slate for SMC contest, we have no control over how the outcome is going to turn out. So, it will not work out according to the quota that we have, but that is where the party list comes in. The party list will have multi-racial candidates listed and each party, in the way that it chooses from the party list, is not strictly in order, like as in other countries, but to be chosen in such a way to meet racial representation requirements first.

Let us say, for example, if we are short of a particular racial group, even though that person may be fifth on the list, he gets chosen first. So, in that way, you use the party list to make up for any shortfall in racial representation as a result of unpredictable SMC contests.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha, you have a clarification? Please proceed.

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sorry, just a quick clarification to Ms Hazel Poa. So, she thanked the hon Mr Murali for sharing his experience and I also thank Mr Murali for sharing his experience. But she mentioned that it may not matter because he won anyway. I just wanted some clarification.

Does that imply that she is asking minority candidates and future minority candidates to accept such racial abuse, because it may not matter and because he may win in elections, rather than having a system that prevents or at least reduces the probability of the minority candidate from being subjected to such abuse and yet, at the same time, allows the minority representation in Parliament, because we show up together as a multiracial team?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: I am not suggesting that minority candidates should just accept those treatment. I am suggesting racism be tackled holistically for the whole society because it is not only election candidates who encounter such incidents.

8.22 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Question, "That this House calls for the abolition of Group Representation Constituencies" put, and negatived.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.