Non-Constituency Member

5.20 pm

Mdm Speaker: Before we proceed with the next Motion, I wish to state for the record that at the General Election held on 11 September 2015, Ms Lee Li Lian of the Workers' Party was declared by the Returning Officer as the candidate elected as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) in accordance with section 52 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

With reference to section 53 of the said Act, I also wish to state for the record that Ms Lee Li Lian did not take and subscribe the oath of allegiance before this Parliament at its first or second Sittings in its First Session held on 15 January 2016 and 25 January 2016, respectively.

Mr Low, please move your Motion and make your speech.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move,

"That this Parliament, pursuant to section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act –

(a) declares that the seat of Ms Lee Li Lian, who was elected a Non-constituency Member of Parliament under section 52 of the Act, has become vacant by reason of her having failed to take and subscribe before Parliament the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first and second Sittings of the first session of the present Parliament; and

(b) resolves that the seat be filled in accordance with sections 52(2) and 52(3B)(a) of the Act."

Mdm Speaker, the Motion before the House is to provide for the filling of the vacant seat in accordance with the relevant section of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Ms Lee Li Lian of the Workers' Party was declared an NCMP at the General Elections 2015 but has decided not to take up the seat. Ms Lee Li Lian has not taken the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first Sitting on 15 January 2016 and the second Sitting on 25 January 2016 of the First session of Parliament. Under the Parliamentary Elections Act, three NCMP seats were declared elected. Since Ms Lee Li Lian has not taken up the seat, Parliament has the power to resolve to fill the vacant seat.

Madam, under the Parliamentary Elections Act, if the election results of the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) qualifies for the NCMP seat, two seats are offered to the team of candidates in the GRC. However, there were only three NCMP seats declared under the Act at the last General Election. As a result, East Coast GRC despite being qualified as the next succeeding GRC, only one candidate instead of two was declared NCMP. Under the circumstances, it is logical that Parliament consider filling the vacant seat by declaring another candidate from the East Coast GRC team as NCMP.

Madam, it is public knowledge that the Workers' Party opposes the NCMP scheme. The Workers' Party believes that the NCMP scheme is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. The NCMP scheme has become an attempt to whitewash the tremendous negative impact driven by the change in our political system from Single Member Constituency (SMC) to the creation of GRCs to entrench a one-party political system with no insurance against the failure of the Ruling party.

The Workers' Party is a rational and responsible political party. We understand the political reality. We understand that the struggle for a functional democracy by a loyal Opposition must be fought from within the existing system under the law legislated by Parliament even though we disagree with that. Therefore, we do not oppose individual Members who are willing to sacrifice their time and energy to contribute to the national debate in Parliament.

Hence, if one Member who is declared as NCMP is unable to take up the seat, it is my duty as the leader of the Workers' Party to nominate the next best volunteer. This is why I have decided to move the Motion.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides us for a maximum of nine NCMPs from the Opposition in this House if there are none being elected at the January elections. When the NCMP scheme was proposed in 1984, three benefits were given in support of the scheme. These purported benefits were repeated again in 2010 when NCMP seats were increased from six to nine seats.

The first reason is to provide PAP Ministers and Members with the experience of the cut and thrust of debate by sparring with Opposition Members. The second reason is to allow the electorate to judge for themselves what elected Opposition Members can and cannot do for the people. The third reason is to dispel any suspicions of cover-ups, since Opposition Members would give vent to any allegation of misfeasance or corruption or nepotism, even if these proved false and allow the Government to rebut them.

From the above, Mdm Speaker, it is clear that the creation of the NCMP scheme is chiefly for the benefit of the Ruling party and Opposition Members are deemed as valuable only in relation to the training they give the PAP Ministers and Members. Although the PAP is trying very hard to convince Singaporeans that NCMPs are on par with elected Members, they have shown the cloven hoof by referring to the NCMPs as second-class Members in this House and Opposition best losers who crave for publicity and personal fame.

Such a view was characteristically articulated two days ago in this House by Member Cedric Foo who was so arrogant to say that Mr Leon Perera's presence here is by the grace of the PAP.

Madam, with the backdrop I have described above, it should be no surprise that the Workers' Party has been opposing the NCMP scheme, a scheme which was created to the PAP's political advantage. It is the view of the Workers' Party that the only way forward for a strong Parliament, one that can hold the government of the day to account, is for the Ruling party, in the position of strength, to create a political system that would allow both genuine and loyal Opposition parties to grow as well as the Ruling party to perform and compete for seats.

I expect the Workers' Party's NCMPs to grow strong from their position of weakness and to hold their heads up high with pride and dignity. They will respect Parliament, respect the law and respect themselves. Thank you.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Charles Chong.

5.30 pm

Mr Charles Chong (Punggol East): Mdm Speaker, I am indeed very disappointed that this House would not benefit from Ms Lee Li Lian's membership in this Parliament. I remember, in particular, her speaking passionately during the Population White Paper debate in 2013. She had only just entered Parliament then but brought with her a passion for matters she felt strongly about.

As my opponent in Punggol East SMC in last year's General Election, Ms Lee fought a very good clean fight. When the election results were announced, I was happy to note that she qualified for an NCMP position and the residents of Punggol East could benefit from the voice of someone who had worked with them for more than two and a half years. But this was short-lived as Ms Lee declared soon afterwards that she would not be taking up the NCMP position.

Mdm Speaker, the NCMP scheme has been part of our political landscape since 1984, more than half the time that Singapore has been an independent nation. The Prime Minister, on Wednesday, had given a detailed explanation of the purpose of the NCMP scheme and indicated his intention to increase the number of Opposition Members in this House and to give NCMPs voting rights equal to constituency Members of Parliament. This was really not for the benefit of the PAP but for the Opposition. So, I am a bit puzzled by Mr Low Thia Khiang's claim that the NCMP scheme is for the benefit of the PAP to provide them with sparring partners. If this was so, then why do we get Workers' Party's candidates accepting the position in the first place for the benefit of the PAP?

While the Workers' Party was initially extremely opposed to the scheme, and some of them may still be opposed to the scheme, their position towards it in recent years appears to have softened somewhat, as they must have come to realise that whatever the shortcomings they perceived the scheme has, it does actually confer benefits on members of the Opposition parties.

I say "appears" because we have received mixed signals from the leadership of the Workers' Party, with Mr Low Thia Khiang being on record as saying that he would resign from his Party if it is insisted that he takes up an NCMP seat. On the other hand, members of the Workers' Party, who have previously been NCMPs, have spoken positively of their experience. But we are not here to debate the inconsistencies in the Workers' Party's position or what their internal politics are. There is a more important issue which this House needs to consider.

Mdm Speaker, we are bound by the rules which we have established for ourselves, either in the Parliamentary Standing Orders, in our legislation or in our Constitution. Where there is a framework within which we must work, everyone involved should respect it and not try to find ways to game the system. This applies across the board regardless of party affiliation or political inclinations.

Insofar as the NCMP scheme is concerned, while we must indeed respect the decision of the majority in our General Elections, which was the first of the reasons Ms Lee gave for declining the seat, we must also accord sufficient respect to the decision of the minority as provided for in our statutes. This means, in this case, respecting the results of voting in Punggol East SMC, which saw sufficient numbers of voters in my constituency giving Ms Lee Li Lian a mandate to enter Parliament, a privilege which she has, regretfully, declined to accept and one which the Workers' Party now seeks to transfer to another candidate who did not qualify on the basis of the GE results.

As pointed out by Mr Low Thia Khiang, while the Parliamentary Elections Act allow for Opposition parties to nominate the NCMPs where a GRC is concerned, the Act is really not intended to allow Opposition parties to pick and choose which best losers from different constituencies to enter Parliament. We would be very disappointed if Ms Lee's decision to decline the NCMP position was supported by her party for that reason. It would be a rather unfortunate misuse of the guarantee in the Constitution that at least nine Opposition Members of Parliament will be offered places in Parliament.

My experience with having an NCMP working in my previous constituency was a very positive one. Although Mr Yee Jenn Jong was, as the title suggests, a Non-constituency Member, his presence in this House gave residents of Joo Chiat SMC an additional voice in Parliament, which was only natural as he was closely in touch with issues in Joo Chiat.

For example, when there was a serious dengue outbreak in Joo Chiat, while I worked the ground with the grassroots leaders and NEA officers, Mr Yee raised this issue in Parliament. Although we were political rivals during the Elections, I believe that we were more interested in working for the good of residents after the Elections, notwithstanding our different party colours. I commend Mr Yee for this and I thank him for his commitment to residents of Joo Chiat while I was the serving Member of Parliament there.

To come back to Ms Lee's reason for declining the seat, which I mentioned earlier, I do not think that Mr Yee's decision to take up the NCMP position was in anyway disrespectful of the decision of the majority. On the contrary, it was a benefit to all residents in Joo Chiat SMC. He is an example of an NCMP who sought to grow his roots in the constituency that he had contested in and I certainly do not consider him to be anything like duckweed, without roots; or a vase only for show. Both descriptions do him and the work that he has done a great disservice.

Mdm Speaker, I do not doubt that if the situation was such, that an NCMP seat was offered to Mr Low Thia Khiang, he would either decline it or, as he has stated previously, resign from the Workers' Party if the seat was forced upon him, but that latter circumstance seems unlikely.

It is clear that there is a precedence within the Workers' Party for declining an NCMP position and still retaining your party membership. But whatever their internal positions and intentions may be, as the members of the Workers' Party have now largely seem to accept the NCMP scheme, I would urge them to play by its rules, to abide by its spirit and not to use non-acceptance of a seat by properly-elected candidates as a backdoor way to have someone who did not qualify for the position into this House.

As the Prime Minister has now announced that the NCMP scheme will be tweaked, it seems to me an opportune time for the Government to review the provisions relating to filling a vacated NCMP seat to prevent abuse of the current system. In particular, the practice of transferring an NCMP seat to a candidate in a different constituency is not sound in principle.

It would be like allowing me, after having won the Election in Punggol East, to decline my seat in Parliament and instead pass it on to the PAP candidate who stood in Aljunied GRC or Hougang SMC. This is not something we permit for constituency Members of Parliament, so we need to review whether this is something which makes sense for NCMPs.

In the light of these concerns, I would like the Workers' Party to clarify their position on the transfer of NCMP seats, so that Members, in consideration of the Motion, can make a more informed decision of the factors prompting the request of the filling of the vacated seat with another Workers' Party candidate. For example, it would be useful to understand if the Workers' Party would support a transfer where the next best loser was not a Workers' Party candidate but a candidate from another Opposition party.

Mdm Speaker, I am in favour of diverse voices in Parliament. I agree with the Prime Minister this is, on the whole, beneficial in providing a diversity of views, contributes to more considered debates and, therefore, beneficial for Singapore. So, I welcome the amendments to the NCMP scheme proposed by the Government, and in respect of the Motion being debated, I believe the House would be worse off with one fewer Opposition Member contributing to debates and deliberations. However, I do think that it is unfortunate that Ms Lee Li Lian has decided not to accept the seat even though she was the first best loser in the 2015 General Elections.

This is a point of principle. I have nothing against the Workers' Party's prospective candidate for the vacated NCMP seat. But I feel it is a point which bears further consideration. While voting against the Motion would not be in the interest of debate and diversity of voices in this House, this is a Motion that I have difficulty supporting as it stands without expressing my reservations. [Applause.]

5.41 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Normally, I do not like to criticise the Opposition party, but this time, I really have to get it off my chest.

The Workers' Party (WP) has always insisted that, in principle, they object to the NCMP scheme. They said that if the Government did away with the GRC system, then there would be more Opposition Members in Parliament and we would not need the NCMP scheme.

Let us not debate for now whether this is true or not. I just want to remind all Members, as the Prime Minister said two days ago, that the objective of the GRC system was to ensure enough non-Chinese Members in Parliament to defend our multiracial and multicultural spirit and to ensure that the minorities are not marginalised. This scheme should not be abolished easily.

Of course, WP has the right to uphold a principle that is different from PAP's. But the problem is that, when facing an NCMP seat, WP members have a different attitude.

WP's Secretary-General Mr Low Thia Khiang said in Parliament in 2010 that he would never accept an NCMP seat. If WP forces him to take up the NCMP seat, he would rather resign, but whether or not other WP members should accept the NCMP seat is up to the Party's decision.

WP's Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, said in 2009 that this scheme was, in her own words, "overall supportable". She said that Singapore's election system is a first-past-the-post system, which can easily result in a situation whereby one party takes up an overwhelming majority of the seats. Hence, the NCMP scheme can allow the people who have voted for the Opposition to be represented in Parliament.

If you think these words sound familiar, then you are right! This is the exact reason why the Government implemented the NCMP scheme.

Ms Sylvia Lim accepted the NCMP seat in 2006. Back then, she said that since there were more than 50,000 voters in Aljunied GRC who had voted for WP, she felt that she had the obligation to accept the NCMP seat. Since 2006, there have been five WP members who had accepted the NCMP seat.

It looks like WP is saying one thing yet doing another when it comes to the NCMP seat. Two days ago, we even heard Mr Low Thia Khiang referring NCMPs as "the duckweeds in a pond". Today, however, he is moving a Motion to bring another piece of "duckweed" into Parliament; or, to "float" into Parliament. I do not understand what the real stance of the WP is!

If it is indeed like what Mr Low has said, that the NCMP scheme only benefits the PAP or the Ruling party, then why bother bringing another NCMP into Parliament?

Even if we accept that the WP regards the NCMP scheme as an interim measure, there is, however, a WP member who has gone against this stance.

Ms Lee Li Lian has refused to take up this seat. I understand that she has her own considerations. However, before the election, the WP should have ensured that all the candidates were prepared to abide by the Constitution and our political system to serve the voters. No candidates should have this attitude that they will serve the voters only if they are elected. The WP has failed to do so and I am very disappointed.

WP has recommended Mr Daniel Goh to take over Ms Lee Li Lian as an NCMP. I think this is not a reasonable request.

Let us compare an NCMP with an elected MP. Just like my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Charles Chong, has mentioned: if any elected Member of Parliament cannot fulfil his duty for some reasons, the seat cannot be transferred. If it is an SMC, then according to our Constitution, the seat must be filled through by-election to elect another Member. Back then, Ms Lee Li Lian was elected into Parliament through a by-election. To be fair, the NCMP seat should also not be transferable.

If there are only three Opposition Members in Parliament now, then perhaps for the sake of having enough Opposition Members, we can allow one of the NCMP seats to be filled. But now, we already have a total of eight Opposition Members. If Ms Lee Li Lian did not decline this seat, there would have been nine Opposition Members. In the future, there will be at least 12 Opposition Members. Furthermore, an NCMP will have the same voting rights as an elected Member, which means that they will be able to influence national policies. Hence, the legitimacy and the appointment of the NCMP will become more important. I hope that the Government can review the relevant legislation to make sure that the NCMP seat will maintain its legitimacy.

The NCMP scheme is already written into our Constitution. The system ensures that, regardless of the election results, in constituencies where the vote shares are very close, the Opposition parties will have the chance to represent their voters in Parliament. Therefore, only the losers who garnered the highest vote share can be qualified as an NCMP. This scheme should not become something like a proportional representation, to allow the party with the second highest vote share to have a certain quota to nominate their candidates.

If we change the NCMP scheme into proportional representation to a certain extent, will it be constitutional? The percentage of votes garnered by the WP in Punggol East was almost 9% higher than that in the East Coast GRC. However, the WP is now proposing to transfer the Parliament representation entitled by the Punggol East voters to East Coast GRC voters. Is this fair to the Punggol East voters?

WP claimed that they wanted to represent Singaporeans, but does their Motion truly respect the people's will? I hope Members can ponder on this carefully.

The Prime Minister mentioned two days ago that the Government would confer NCMPs the same voting rights as elected Members and will increase the minimum number of Opposition Members in Parliament. This means that the NCMP scheme will become even more important.

Hence, I hope that the WP will be able to clarify their stance regarding the NCMP scheme. Do they support the NCMP scheme? In the next election, will they ensure that all their candidates are prepared to fulfil their duties towards the voters under the system? I hope the WP would be able to clarify this so that the voters will be well-informed in the next election before casting their sacred votes.

5.51 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Madam, I was an NCMP from 2006 to 2011 and I wish to share my perspective on this Motion which will determine if the House will have another NCMP or not.

First, Madam, let me refer to Member Charles Chong's earlier speech where he made some comments about being disappointed that Ms Lee Li Lian would not take up the seat and how Punggol East residents would be disappointed.

Madam, I can fully understand why Ms Lee Li Lian did not want to take up the NCMP seat offered to her after the general election. She has explained her decision publicly. The first and most important reason, she cited, was that she had been the incumbent Member of Parliament in Punggol East SMC for two and a half years, and had to respect the voters' collective decision not to re-elect her. In other words, she had the mandate of the voters of the constituency but it had been lost.

Madam, if an incumbent Member of Parliament who had served the constituency, was just defeated and yet returned to Parliament as an NCMP, it might be deemed undemocratic. And Madam, contrary to what Mr Charles Chong had earlier said, the Party did not support Ms Lee's decision because we "want to swop candidates". We respect her decision that she was the incumbent Member of Parliament who had lost and she wanted to give due respect to the voters' collective decision not to re-elect her. That is the critical difference, Madam. Personally, if I had been in her shoes, I would have done the same.

Madam, the Workers' Party is proposing that the vacancy be filled by the next succeeding candidate in accordance with the Parliamentary Elections Act. The next succeeding candidate would be one of the team-mates of NCMP Leon Perera from the East Coast GRC team. The Party had earlier announced that should Parliament declare the vacancy and resolve that it be filled, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh would fill the seat.

Madam, earlier, Mr Charles Chong referred to the legal framework and suggested that we all should follow the legal framework and abide by it in our decisions on NCMP. Madam, there is actually precedent for Parliament to fill an NCMP vacancy. The only time this arose previously was after the 1984 General Election, when it was the Government itself that moved the Motion to fill the vacancy.

At that election, the Workers' Party candidate, Mr MPD Nair was offered an NCMP seat, having narrowly lost the contest in Jalan Kayu by 571 votes, out of about 23, 400. When Mr MPD Nair did not subscribe to the oath of allegiance in the first two Sittings of Parliament, then Leader of the House, Mr S Dhanabalan moved the Motion to declare the seat vacant and to have it filled by the next succeeding candidate.

So, Madam, the Government itself condones the filling of a vacancy when an NCMP does not take up the seat or as Mr Charles Chong and Er Dr Lee had said, the Government condones the "transfer of NCMP seats". No by-election was held in that instance to fill the seat.

Madam, the NCMP scheme was put in place by the governing party and Workers' Party cannot change it. We are moving this Motion today because the Constitution provides for it. We also recognise that the Workers' Party can make a contribution to the nation this way.

Madam, earlier, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah commented on some of my earlier comments about the NCMP scheme, and I would suggest that she reads my comments in totality. Because what I had said was that the scheme was overall supportable in the context of GRCs and gerrymandering that has been taking place in our political system, which I think I do not have to elaborate on. And I mentioned in Parliament that the Prime Minister was trying to make a bad situation better. But the NCMP scheme is not the way forward to make the system more robust. And that was why the Workers' Party voted against the Constitutional amendment in 2010.

Madam, it would be a dangerous day indeed if Singapore was to function on the basis that all that was needed for good politics was the NCMP scheme. Entrenching the NCMP scheme as good politics sends the wrong signal. To Singaporeans, the signal being sent is having Opposition voices is enough. It is not.

Madam, the most effective check and balance on the Government is the prospect of, and, in fact, the actual loss of constituency seats.

Madam, Singaporeans would remember what happened after the 2011 GE five years ago. At that election, the PAP faced a national swing that reduced its vote share to 60% and the first loss of a GRC. At the post-election press conference, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was in a sombre mood. He reflected that Singaporeans were concerned with various issues such as the cost of living and housing, education and healthcare, and also with the PAP's approach to Government. Prime Minister Lee pledged that the PAP would "analyse the results, learn from what has emerged, put right what is wrong, improve what can be made better, and also improve ourselves to serve Singaporeans better."

Madam, last year at the state funeral of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, we even learnt that the Prime Minister went into meditation after the 2011 GE.

Madam, lately the PAP has sought to downplay the effect of the 2011 GE and insisted that it has started reviewing its policies since 2006. However, Singaporeans could not have helped noticing the slew of palpable changes in many unpopular policies after the 2011 GE, including the slaughtering of some sacred cows. These included reviewing benchmarking Ministerial salaries to top private sector earners, delinking prices of BTO flats from market transactions and putting Government monies into acquiring buses for the use of public transport operators.

Madam, Singaporeans should pat themselves on the back for sending the Government a strong signal in 2011 that they were not satisfied with some aspects of the PAP's governance. In 2013, the PAP lost Punggol East SMC to the Workers' Party, the second blow in two years that made them quicken the pace of change. Singaporeans forced the PAP to review their policies, at the risk of losing more ground.

Madam, in our system where the PAP is so strongly entrenched, Singaporeans must always remember that their vote is the loudest check of all.

Madam, do we want a system where Opposition Members only get to debate? If Opposition Members do not manage constituencies, they would not be able to demonstrate that they, too, were up to the task of representing their constituents, building vibrant communities, and, yes, running the Town Councils. Should the Ruling party decay or become corrupt, it would be too late to look around for any other party with ground experience, as there may well be none.

Madam, even as we move this Motion, we are under no illusion that NCMPs can replace the check and bargaining power the people have with elected Opposition Members in Parliament. Madam, I urge the House to support the Motion.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat, are you going to make a clarification?

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): May I join in the debate?

Mdm Speaker : Yes, please.

5.59 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat: Mdm Speaker, the last time a Motion of such nature was tabled in Parliament was in 1985. Back then, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development Mr S Dhanabalan moved the Motion stating that it is to provide for the filling of the vacant NCMP seat.

The PAP then believed that it could define its brand of democracy by allowing up to three Opposition Members in Parliament. So, the law came to pass. Mr Dhanabalan simply added that, "the Motion is just to implement the law." Nothing more, nothing less.

The PAP Government of today believes it could retain its influence and power with up to nine Opposition Members in Parliament and amended the law in 2010.

Madam, today the Workers' Party is here to move a similar Motion to implement the law pursuant to section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. This Motion does not change in any way the stand of the Workers' Party that the NCMP scheme is not necessary if we had adhered to our original Constitution and reverted to a democracy comprising only Single Member Constituencies.

My colleagues in this House have spoken in detail on the Motion so I shall not repeat those points. It is understandable for some PAP Members in this House to want to take this opportunity to score some political points. After all, in the Motion of 1985, Mr Dhanabalan said, and I quote, "politicians are practical people" and that "they look at the practical exercise of influence and power".

A distribution of power and influence in this House is so lopsided that the Ruling party can dictate the number of NCMP seats it allows, and at the same time, denying these seats to be filled through its sheer majority. That is the reality in this House. The Ruling party may say that it has given us three NCMP seats but it is the Workers' Party that created the vacancy.

To that argument, I agree. But the PAP Government has also enacted the law for such vacancy to be filled in the event that a candidate does not wish to take up the NCMP seat. The Workers' Party respects the wishes of its members and I am sure the PAP will do the same.

So, this is what the Workers' Party is doing today and that is to implement to the letter of the law what is provided in section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. Thank you, Madam.

6.02 pm

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Speaker, I rise to speak with a heavy heart. As the hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah said, none of us, none, would like to see this House criticising each other. This is not the purpose of why we are gathered here. We are gathered in this House because we want to make a difference to the lives of fellow Singaporeans and we want to leave behind a better Singapore for our children and generations to come.

The Motion before us goes beyond the procedural issue of filling an empty NCMP seat. The Motion that stands before us has far more fundamental implications. It goes to the heart of the rights and responsibilities of all of us being elected Members of Parliament (MPs), be it MPs or NCMPs. We are all elected by the voters into this House, including NCMPs.

In response to Mr Low's earlier point, I would be the first to say that if any of my PAP MPs dare call an NCMP a second-class citizen, I, as the Whip, will put them in their place. But on the other hand, please do not call them duckweeds because even in a pond, duckweeds have a purpose. Let us respect each other. Let us respect the different roles that we play in this House, be it as MPs, NCMPs or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). We may play different roles but we can all be united by a common purpose to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, our primary concern and focus for this House in the coming years will continue to be the continued survival and success of our country, Singapore.

Many Members in this House have spoken, including our Opposition colleagues, and everyone has pointed out that for Singapore to continue to enjoy success, we must continue to have the diversity of perspectives. We must continue to have robust decision-making in this House.

One of the ways in which this Government has sought to achieve this is through the NCMP scheme where the best losers in a General Election can still enter Parliament, participate in the debates and participate in the decision-making for the good of our country. Even if a single party today wins all 89 seats in this Parliament, we are assured of nine NCMPs and nine NMPs, by law, for them to join this House to participate in our decision-making.

When we first started this scheme, we started modestly. To be frank, at that point in time, no one really knew what the future would be like. Over time, we grew it to six NCMPs and then to nine. Two days ago, the Prime Minister proposed to further strengthen this scheme by further increasing the number NCMPs from nine to 12, and also to give NCMPs equal voting rights as those of elected MPs in this House. If Parliament accepts our Prime Minister's proposal, it will mean that 20% of this House will come from parties other than the governing party, in any electoral circumstances, even in extreme circumstances where one party wins all 89 seats.

Second, there will be no difference between elected MPs and elected, I say "elected", NCMPs. NCMPs will have the same voting rights although they do not need to look after a constituency. NCMPs can continue to contribute to the debates and the decision-making in this House regardless of whether they have a constituency or not.

So, the question is: why? Why does the Prime Minister, having just led his party to an election where his party won 69% of the votes, want to do this? Is it for selfish partisan political reasons or is it for something more?

We have always said the primary concern, the number one concern for the PAP is the longevity of our country, Singapore. We put that way ahead of the longevity of our own party and we have never changed from that position. We are making these changes because we want to continue to strengthen our political system, not just for this generation, but for many more generations to come.

Foreign observers looking at us are puzzled. Why do we have to do this? Is it, as some suggest, for narrow partisan political interest? Is this for our own selfish interest? If so, why do we need to do it? Why do we need to do it now?

Madam, this Government believes that it should, at a moment when it has won a strong mandate, to think beyond the immediate, beyond narrow party interests, to make sure that we can continue to grow a stable, open, contestable political system, for the future of Singapore, not the future of PAP per se.

And there are people on the ground who asked us: why are you doing this? Is this good for your party? We do not know, but we believe that this is good for Singapore and that is why we are doing it.

Madam, this very act is an embrace of diversity, not just in words but in actions. This very act is the embrace of debate, not the fear of debate. We walk the talk. No one should doubt that we are willing to fill the last vacant NCMP seat in this House.

We look forward to having a full and complete House, with MPs, NCMPs and NMPs all vigorously debating the future of our country, working hand-in-hand, for the good of our country. So, we have no trouble at all, supporting a Motion to fill the last NCMP seat. We look forward to it.

But we do have an issue with the reason that Ms Lee Li Lian gave for giving up her seat in favour of another Workers' Party's candidate. We do have an issue with the Workers' Party's motivation in supporting Ms Lee Li Lian's decision and moving this Motion to declare the seat vacant. Let me explain why.

The Workers' Party has often spoken up against the NCMP scheme, including in this very House, this very afternoon. In 2010, Ms Sylvia Lim said that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. In 2010, Mr Low Thia Khiang too said that, "We will vote against it in-principle because that is not a system we should entrench as a political system." Just on Wednesday, Mr Low Thia Khiang repeated this outside the Chamber and I quote, NCMPs have no "political muscle". "An NCMP is just duckweed on the water of a pond... You don't have roots, unlike elected MPs …" and so on and so forth.

But, the Workers' Party obviously see advantages for itself in accepting NCMP seats. Because, despite the repeated objections, many Workers' Party candidates have in fact taken up the NCMP seats in the past and in today's Chamber. In 1988, Dr Lee Siew Choh became the Party's first serving NCMP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam who claimed that he wanted nothing to do with the NCMP scheme in 1984 accepted the seat himself in 1997 when it was offered to him.

In more recent times, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Gerald Giam both took up the NCMP seats that were offered to them last term. Mr Yee said in 2011, and I quote, "It is more effective to be able to have a voice through the NCMP scheme than not". So, obviously, they have found it useful. And they must have found meaning to be able to join the debates in Parliament to contribute to the future of our country.

In fact, Ms Sylvia Lim, Workers' Party Chairman, despite statements to the contrary, has publicly expressed support for the scheme. Let me quote. In 2009, she said the scheme is "overall supportable" because it gives "greater recognition to the desire of voters who cast votes for Opposition candidates in significant numbers which would otherwise be shut out in a pure first-past-the-post system". And the next sentence is even more important. She said, "It will also facilitate Opposition parties serving the people in Parliament based on results obtained at General Elections."

Mdm Speaker, Members of this House, this is exactly the reason why the Government introduced the scheme and now, to want to strengthen it further. Ms Lim was once an NCMP as she had shared. When she accepted her NCMP seat in 2006, Ms Lim said that it was with "that sense of obligation", to those voters who had voted for her, that she was taking up the appointment. She said that her decision to accept the seat was made easier because "more than 58,000 people actually wanted a Workers' Party voice for Aljunied GRC".

Mdm Speaker, at the start of this new electoral term, this House saw a new batch of Workers' Party NCMPs accept their seats − Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Leon Perera. We welcome both of them as equal Members in this House in debate. But Ms Lee Li Lian did not accept the seat. Many in this House who have spoken in the last few days, including Mr Leon Perera on Tuesday, said that it was a privilege to participate in the debate in this House. And we all said that we want to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. Like her party colleagues, one would have hoped, expected, wished that Ms Lee Li Lian would have the same sense of obligation to do right by the support of the people who had voted for her.

So, the question is: why did Ms Lee, a Member of this House in the last Parliament, the Workers' Party candidate who came closest to being re-elected and returned to Parliament, decide not to fulfil her responsibility to the people of Punggol East who had voted for her? It is most regrettable that Ms Lee has chosen to reject her NCMP seat and, with that, her responsibility to her voters and Singapore. The voters of Punggol East have given Ms Lee Li Lian the right to serve and, I am sure, they look forward to her service to our nation. But, unfortunately, this is not to be.

On the day when Ms Lee lost the election, she said, "I should give this chance to my other Workers' Party colleagues. We really have some good people who deserve the slot". But Ms Lee got it wrong here. The right and the privilege were given to her by Punggol East residents. It was not for her to give it to someone else.

Then, the very next day, Ms Lee repeated a similar sentiment, that "There are better people in the party that we should showcase. Let the people see how good these people are". "Showcase". I was not sure what she meant. The honour and privilege to join this House are for service to our nation. It is not for us to showcase ourselves. It is not for us to showcase our party talents. If we do that, we come in with the wrong end in mind.

And for the third time, on 16 September, Ms Lee said, "The NCMP role is better suited for an aspiring MP who has no such experience and should take this up to show how he or she can contribute in Parliament." Again, "to show".

Let us remember our duty and responsibility as Members of this House. Let us not turn the NCMP scheme into a revolving door to showcase our talent for our own party objectives. We are here to answer a higher calling: to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. We are not here to showcase our talent. It is not like this for the Prime Minister. It is not like this for any of the Ministers, any Members of Parliament, including NCMPs. And I hope that we, as Members in this House, will continue to bear this in our hearts as we go forth in our journey to serve Singapore and Singaporeans, first and foremost.

Mdm Speaker, this brings me to the central and troubling questions raised by this Motion.

First, let me categorically say this again that we want to see the third NCMP seat filled. What troubles us is the manoeuvring behind. Ms Lee Li Lian was the person who qualified. Mr Daniel Goh is the person that the Workers' Party supports to take up the seat. So, clearly, there are advantages to take up the NCMP seat. And let us be frank about it. I do not think people take up the NCMP seat to do the PAP a favour. I do not think so. Why would you want to do so and be so gracious to train the PAP? When one takes up the NCMP scheme, I hope it is for the correct reason, to serve Singapore. And I hope it is not for the wrong reason, to showcase your talent. We do not want the NCMP scheme to be a revolving door. This is the reason why I cannot understand the events that happened this week.

When the Prime Minister on Wednesday gave his speech and explained why we are going to expand the NCMP scheme in size and in scope, on the very same night, Mr Low completely dismissed the NCMP scheme. He even called NCMPs "duckweeds". I do not know how Mr Leon Perera or Mr Dennis Tan feel. But I would guarantee you that none of my PAP MPs would ever call you "duckweeds". We value you for your contributions.

So, why not let us be honest with each other, as our founding Prime Minister had urged us to be, as Members of this House? There are political merits for any political party to take up the NCMP scheme. And if we say that with a straight face, touch our hearts, I do not think anybody will fault the person for saying it. We just have to be frank with ourselves, why we do it.

The NCMP scheme must certainly have also benefited the Workers' Party. If not, why does the Workers' Party allow its members to take up the NCMP seats, not just two, but all three? If it is just for the PAP, why do it? And if Ms Lee Li Lian had been upfront, honest about it with her voters before they cast their votes, declare that she is not the best candidate and that even if she gets the highest vote share, she would not take up her NCMP seat, I think the Punggol East residents would feel that they are fairly treated, fairly respected.

Now, if you say that the NCMP scheme does not give any political party muscle, again, the question is: why bother to fill the NCMP seat? Why do we want Mr Leon Perera, Mr Dennis Tan and, perhaps, in time to come, Mr Daniel Goh, to spend their precious time to be here, if it is of no political advantage for the Workers' Party?

So, Madam, for this reason, my party will support the filling of the last NCMP seat according to the rules. But the motion must reflect the truth. We have to recognise that the Workers' Party has continued to criticise the system and, yet, deliberately made use of it to the hilt for its political advantage. As such, Mdm Speaker, with your permission I propose to amend the Motion with the following additions.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Chan, do you have a copy of the amendment? Can you give me a copy?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Yes. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mdm Speaker. ]

Mdm Speaker: The amendment is in order. Are copies available for Members?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Yes, Madam.

Mdm Speaker: Clerks, can you help to distribute copies of the amendment? [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.] Mr Chan, can you please move your amendment?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Madam, I propose to move,

"to amend the Motion, to add '(c) but regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers' Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing Opposition candidates, has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share, contrary to the expressed will of the voters, and that the Workers' Party supports this political manoeuvre to take full advantage of the NCMP seat, even as its Secretary General criticises NCMPs as just 'duckweed on the water of the pond.'"

Mdm Speaker, my party will support the amended Motion. Thus, let me conclude.

Madam, we look forward to all Members of this House discharging our responsibilities fully. We look forward to all Members in this House participating robustly in the decision making for the future of our country. We look forward to having a full and complete House to advance the future of Singapore. We also look forward to the day where every candidate who stands for election has in his or her heart the full commitment to serve, regardless as an MP or NCMP. That when we as candidates, when we walk the streets to ask for the votes of our electorate, to canvass for their support, and that when we tell them to place their trust in us, we mean it. When we say that, "Let me be of service to you", we mean it. And it does not matter whether we serve as an MP or NCMP. But it matters more than ever that we serve Singapore and Singaporeans and it matters that we respect the will of the voters.

An NCMP can contribute no less than any MP in this House. In fact, as I have said, an NCMP without constituency responsibilities should be able to contribute as much, if not much more to Parliament. An NCMP has the privilege to demonstrate to Singaporeans his capabilities and commitment.

Finally, I look forward to the day where every candidate respects the wishes of our electorate according to our laws. Let us not turn the NCMP scheme from one of service to the nation into a revolving door for partisan, political, talent displays.

With that, Madam, I beg to move the Motion as amended. [Applause.]

6.34 pm

Mdm Speaker: It has been proposed, as an amendment, that the words "(c) but regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers' Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing Opposition candidates has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share, contrary to the expressed will of the voters, and that the Workers' Party supports this political manoeuvre to take full advantage of the NCMP seat, even as its Secretary General criticises NCMPs as just 'duckweed on the water of the pond.'", and these words be added at the end of the Motion.

Hon Members, it may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single Question. Do I have Members' agreement on this?

Hon Members indicated assent.

Mdm Speaker: The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Are there any Members who wish to take the floor? Yes, Mr Leon Perera.

6.35 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): With your permission, Mdm Speaker, I would like to speak on the Motion. Mdm Speaker and hon Members of the House, I would like to share my thoughts on the amended NCMP Motion before us.

Mdm Speaker, over the course of the debate, over the last one hour or so, the thrust of the debate from the hon Members from the People's Action Party in this House has been to construct a narrative. That narrative is that the Workers' Party are bad people.

It is not an unfamiliar narrative. It is a narrative that is frequently heard. It is that the Workers' Party is shifty, somehow untrustworthy, our motives have to be questioned, our integrity is to be questioned, and that has found expression in the amendment to the Motion that has been tabled before the House.

It has been put across that we are contradictory; we are contradicting ourselves by accepting the NCMP seat and at the same time opposing the NCMP scheme in principle. I will share my personal perspective and point of view, because I think no doubt that it is relevant. Many people will want to know why it is that I oppose the NCMP scheme in principle, but I have agreed to accept an NCMP position myself. I intend to speak on that.

But before I do so, let me just suggest another consideration to this House which is this: the thrust of People's Action Party Members of this House in speaking on the NCMP scheme – both the current NCMP scheme and the new scheme that is being formed – is that this is, Mdm Speaker, a gesture of magnanimity on the part of the People's Action Party. It is charity that it is being extended, and for which we should be grateful. It is been put across that the People's Action Party does not stand to benefit in any way from the NCMP scheme. None whatsoever. It is sheer magnanimity.

But, Mdm Speaker, I do see a benefit to the People's Action Party that is not to the benefit of Singapore. That benefit is that the NCMP scheme allows the People's Action Party to send a very strong message to the Singaporean people. That message is you do not need to vote for any party other than the People's Action Party. You should, you ought, you can and you must return 100% of elected Members of Parliament seats to the People's Action Party and you should relegate Opposition parties to NCMP seats.

I can see how that benefits the People's Action Party. I suspect that that benefit may play out. But does it benefit Singapore, Mdm Speaker? Does it benefit Singapore? I am not so sure.

I think if that message is the message that is put across to the Singaporean electorate and that message is accepted by the Singaporean electorate, what will happen is the negation of the evolution of genuine democracy, real political balance in this country. And a passion for real political balance and genuine democracy, Mdm Speaker, is not just why I am here. It is why my Workers' Party colleagues are all here.

If Singapore's politics evolves, so that there are no elected Opposition MPs – which could well be a reality, it nearly happened in the last general election – what will happen is that the People's Action Party's hyper majority in Parliament – it is not a super majority; "super majority" is a term that comes from US politics and I think it refers to a 60% majority in the Senate, this is not a "super majority", Mdm Speaker. This is a hyper majority. It is 92% or 93% of all parliamentary seats —

Mdm Speaker: Mr Perera, please keep your speech relevant to the Motion and the amendment.

Mr Leon Perera: Yes, Mdm Speaker. If the hyper majority of the People's Action Party becomes basically unassailable, then the will of the people will not effectively be enforced. There will not be an electable and viable constructive Opposition party that Singaporeans will be able to support in order to hold the Government to account and ensure that the Government actually aligns itself to the political character of the country and the will of the people of Singapore.

That is my fear for Singapore and that is why I oppose the NCMP scheme in principle. While we are discussing the NCMP scheme, I note in passing – I know you have said I should limit my speech to the Motion – that we do not have a completely level political playing field here. We should not forget the context. The Workers' Party has made a number of recommendations on its manifesto on political reforms. Now it is not the time to go into those in any detail, but I want to note that in passing, we do not have an independent Electoral Commission. The People's Association does not work with Workers' Party in the same way as the PAP —

Mdm Speaker: Mr Perera, that is not relevant to the Motion.

Mr Leon Perera: Alright. Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I will just confine myself then to talk about my decision to take up the NCMP seat while opposing the NCMP scheme in principle, before I move to my conclusion.

Firstly, it was not a decision I took lightly. I thought about it very, very carefully. It was a very difficult decision to make. But I decided that on balance, I could make a constructive contribution. And on balance, I could make a constructive contribution, and that the benefits will outweigh the risk. I could make a constructive contribution that would help in the longer term cause of political balance in this country.

Whether that was the right decision or not, I will leave that to others to judge, but I think it is something that all of us in the Workers' Party have to continually review as we move forward, whether in the context of a changing political landscape, changing rules, whether this balance and this decision still holds true.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I just want to make one final observation. We are here today to debate this Motion. We have heard many hon Members of the People's Action Party talk about Ms Lee Li Lian. To be very honest, Mdm Speaker, she is not here in this Chamber to defend herself. The Workers' Party Members have attempted to speak out to explain her reasons, but she is not here to defend herself. She is not a person who lacks integrity. She loves this country. She has worked very, very hard, as some Members have noted. Even when she was pregnant, she did house visits.

But we are gathered here today to debate this Motion which I think is having the effect of painting a certain narrative about the Workers' Party. But is the thrust of this Motion for the good of Singapore, or is it really undermining the long-term democratic hopes that I certainly would have for real democracy and for balance in this country? I am not so sure.

I would like to conclude with this one question, which I think is relevant when we talk about achieving political balance and achieving real democracy for the country that we love in the longer term. And this one question is this and it has not been answered to the best of my knowledge by the hon Members of the People's Action Party who have spoken, which is, what will happen to Singapore if we are dependent on just one party overwhelmingly and that one party fails and there is no other party in our political landscape that can step in to remedy that gap? What will happen to this country?

Can any member of the People's Action Party provide that answer? If you feel that that is an argument to develop more political balance, as I do, then that should be the consideration that guides us to have a political landscape that encourages the development of real political balance.

And if I just may be permitted one last point before I resume my seat —

Mdm Speaker: Do not stray from the Motion, Mr Perera. You are coming close to it already.

Mr Leon Perera: Okay. In that case, I will conclude, Mdm Speaker.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang, would you like to summarise and reply?

6.44 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, I will first deal with the amended Motion. Madam, the Workers' Party rejects the amended Motion, the paragraph (c), because there is no basis to say that this is a political manoeuvre.

First of all, Ms Lee Li Lian did not accept the NCMP seat not because the party asked her to do so. She feels that she should not accept because she has lost the mandate to serve Punggol East. She was an MP with full mandate to be in this House. I will deal with that in terms of mandate and what Parliament is for. I think we better go back to the basics and fundamental. What is Parliament for?

I think it is what Minister Heng Swee Keat had asked, "What for?" I will go back to that later, but let me deal with the amended Motion first. The argument that because Ms Lee Li Lian has obtained 15,800 votes in Punggol East and thereby, she should represent the 15,800 voters who voted for her to be in this House to make a contribution.

It is illogical because NCMP, by definition, is Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. An NCMP cannot represent the minority who voted for her in this House. So, I do not understand the logic that because she has obtained the votes and, thereby, is "elected".

If you want to work the system to say that you wish the minority voters to be represented by MPs, then let us make it equal for all MPs and it should be elected by a proportionate representation system, not our system. NCMP is basically the "best loser". It is a very different concept from proportionate representation of party lists. So, I think let us not try to change the concept and tell people that this is the same. They are different.

Members are saying here that, "Look, you don't take Punggol East voters seriously, you don't respect them". But Madam, it is the contrary. It is exactly because Ms Lee did not and would not take lightly the voters of Punggol East, that she decided having been their elected MP for over two years, their rejection means she has no legitimacy to be in Parliament. This is the way of respecting the wishes of the voters.

Neither is she disrespectful of the Constitution, as the Constitution clearly allows it and precedence also permits for an individual to vacate the NCMP seat. So, I do not really understand what the fuss is about. It is not a political manoeuvre because it is provided for under the law that says if an NCMP like Ms Lee Li Lian has not taken up the seat, Parliament can decide to fill the vacancy under the law, and hence I moved the Motion to allow Parliament to decide.

The last part of the amended Motion, referring to what I said to the press, that I compared an NCMP to "duckweed on the water of the pond". Let us make no mistake about it. There is a fundamental difference between an NCMP and an elected MP, or a constituency MP because there are a lot of things you cannot do as an NCMP.

Ms Lee Li Lian just told me her application for the use of a venue, a common area, for some function has been rejected by the Town Council. Is there a difference? You cannot even have a place to organise activities for the residents. That is the difference of being an NCMP.

Even if she accepted the NCMP seat today, I think the outcome will still be the same. Let us not be hypocrites to say that, "Look, they are the same". They are different. I know because I have been an elected MP. And I see through how the PAP works. Of course, the rejection is explained as "we do not allow political parties to use common areas ". You use the People's Association (PA), you use Advisers. Come on. Let us be honest about it.

So, it is correct, as NCMP, you cannot sink roots in that way because you just cannot possibly connect with the residents the way you want.

Next, the difference between NCMP and Constituency MP is this: as a constituency MP, you conduct Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), you represent the residents, you write to the Ministries. From the response of the letter, you will know what is the policy and what is the implementation of the policy. There are gaps. You follow up through the case. You know what is the trend.

Yes, NCMP can talk to people. You can do surveys and thereby, you can air your views in this House, but you will not know exactly the problem and the policy gaps, because you do not get those kinds of cases. So, that is fundamentally the difference between constituency MP, elected MP and NCMP. You cannot grow muscle because you do not have roots, you are floating. Let us be honest about the difference.

I have stated why we will reject the amendment because this amendment is not true. We are not manoeuvring. It is allowed under the law. We do not tell Ms Lee Li Lian, "Look, you don't accept NCMP, and thereby, we can have whoever we like here". We do not work that way.

Madam, the Government Whip asked why should the PAP, after having won 69.9% of the vote at the last Elections, do this. So generous? So magnanimous? To get more Opposition representation in Parliament? Mr Leon Perera has given a very good answer. Yes, you want Singaporeans to believe that there is no need to vote for Opposition. Just vote for PAP and let us have Opposition members as NCMPs.

And you are telling them, "Yes, your views will be represented. NCMPs can participate in the debates here". I am not saying that it is not useful. It can be useful, but fundamentally, this is not what Parliament is for, because Parliament is not a forum to talk shop, or just air views, or spar with Ministers to show that you are a smart guy.

Parliament is not an academic conference. A Parliament of a functional democracy must give Opposition MPs real power to check and to contest with the Ruling party of the day to hold the Government accountable.

The NCMP scheme can be a drug to Opposition parties, whose candidates may stand for Elections, aiming just to be NCMP, instead of elected MPs. This may cause Parliament to become a colosseum in the long run; for the nation to vent their emotions in a show, but with no real consequence.

As what Ms Sylvia Lim said, "What makes the PAP change? What makes the Cabinet shift left?" Not the voice here. The Workers' Party has been represented in the House since 1981. Mr Jeyaretnam was the first Opposition Member in 1981.

We have said a lot. Does the PAP change? No. If PAP does, I may not need to even move out of Hougang in GE 2011. I moved out exactly because I realised how much you can talk here, the PAP may not move, because you do not believe what I say. I am only one single Member here. How do you make a judgement?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low. Your speech will have to be relevant to the Motion. Please keep it relevant to the Motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, so I am talking about the amended Motion? I can continue with the Motion proper, right?

Mdm Speaker: The Motion and the amendment are taken together, so you are responding; this is your response. Because you moved the Motion, so you have the right of reply. But before you do that, I think we are running out of time. Let me make an extension.

Debate resumed.

6.55 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mdm Speaker, I think I have said most of the things and answered some of the questions and doubts raised.

Madam, the Workers' Party remains, in principle, opposed to the NCMP scheme. I have explained earlier, we are a responsible and rational party; we work within the system. It is the same: we oppose GRC, but we contested in GRCs. There is no contradiction. Make no mistake about that. And that is the spirit of the Workers' Party in wanting to work the system by respecting the law.

Madam, essentially, Parliament is representative of the people. MPs secure a mandate from the people to make decisions on their behalf in Parliament, thus, representation is the foundation of Parliament. Any politician who aspires to enter Parliament must seek and obtain the mandate from the people to represent them so as to seek and effect positive change for the people, not just talk.

You can air your views, you can debate here, but is there change? Is there a new direction set? I think that is what matters most. That is what Parliament is for. We have to ask: what are we here for? What is Parliament for?

Therefore, the NCMP scheme is a distraction from the fundamental meaning of Parliament. The NCMP scheme has the potential to anaesthetise Opposition politicians from the consciousness that political conviction is what brings him or her into politics. Opposition politicians may delude themselves that they are checking the Government when they are, in fact, merely participating in the discussion forum with no real power to effect change.

The NCMP scheme can also inadvertently attract candidates with a different motive and intent to participate in the Elections basically to seek personal fame and glory. If such a political culture becomes the predominant phenomenon, we will have bad politics.

What is more worrying is, should the Ruling party fail one day, what we have left to form an alternative government may be such politicians who have gained exposure and fame through the NCMP route.

Madam, on the other hand, we also recognise that Parliament is a forum to discuss issues affecting the lives of Singaporeans and the future of our nation. We recognise that having one more NCMP will contribute to the debate and possibly, better policy outcomes. Hence, it is also meaningful for well-intended individuals who aspire to represent the will of the people to be NCMPs who contribute to the process. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Chan Chun Sing, you have a clarification?

7.00 pm

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm Speaker, I am glad that Mr Low Thia Khiang has made a distinction between the party list and the NCMP scheme. Indeed, I fully agree with Mr Low that the NCMP scheme is not a party list scheme.

Second, I would like to clarify with Mr Low. He has mentioned many things that an NCMP cannot do. But why not think about the many things an NCMP can do for this House and for this country?

Third, the People's Association is a Statutory Board under the Government. It executes the policy and directions for the Government.

Fourth, Mr Leon Perera, you suggested you put yourself at great risk taking up this scheme when you also seem to suggest that this NCMP scheme will endanger the very future of Singapore. Why do you want to be a party to this?

And finally, Mr Low, you said you have raised many dangers. Indeed, we agree with you there are many changes to the NCMP scheme including people coming in for the wrong reasons, people deluding themselves to showcase. If these are clear, present dangers, why do you allow your party Members to take up this scheme? It must be because on balance, you have found this scheme to be useful perhaps not just to yourself but hopefully to the wider Singapore as you have suggested; that they can contribute something even if they are not taking care of a constituency.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low, you are responding to the clarification?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am clarifying.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, we do think there is something to contribute and that is why we allowed individual qualified members to decide whether they want to be NCMP. But the NCMP scheme itself is not a scheme which we will support as what we explained many times, that the scheme itself is not going to serve us well. I have just explained earlier on why. I am not convinced that this is going to be a scheme that will be able to allow genuine, serious Opposition parties to develop.

Mdm Speaker: The debate on the Motion has concluded. I will now put the necessary questions on the Motion for Members' vote. I will first put the question on the amendment moved by Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added", put and agreed to.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mdm Speaker —

Mdm Speaker: I have already put the question.

Ms Sylvia Lim: We would like our dissent recorded, Madam.

Mdm Speaker: Can I have a show of hands on who wants to have their dissent recorded?

[Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan raised their hands.]

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, we would like the dissent to be recorded that we are objecting to paragraph (c) of the amended Motion.

Mdm Speaker: Okay, it will be so recorded. As the amendment has been agreed to, the necessary consequential amendment to the Motion will be made. I will now put the Motion, as amended, for Members' vote.

Original Motion, as amended, put.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, we ask for our dissent to be recorded.

Mdm Speaker: I just want to get this straight. You object to the amended Motion?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: We object to the amended Motion.

Mdm Speaker: You object to the entire amended Motion?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Paragraph (c) of the amended Motion, as what I had stated.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Low, I have to explain that the voting is only "yes", or "no", or "abstain" on the entire Motion. So, it has to be recorded as either you support or you do not. But your expressions of disapproval of paragraph (c), that can be recorded. But you have to be clear whether you support the Motion, or you do not, or you abstain.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mdm Speaker, can you repeat that?

Mdm Speaker: Okay, let me repeat very clearly. We are at the point where we are voting on the Motion as amended. When you vote on the motion as amended, there are only three types of votes that you can cast, either in favour, against, or you abstain. So, those are the only votes that will be recorded in terms of how you express it as your votes.

Your opposition or disagreement with paragraph (c) is already recorded earlier on, when we voted on the amendment. So, you have to now, make it clear whether you are supporting or you are against or you are abstaining against the Motion as amended.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Since our objection on paragraph (c) has been recorded, we will abstain from voting, instead of objecting.

Mdm Speaker: Can I have a show of hands as to who is abstaining, for us to record?

[Hon Members Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan raised their hands.]

Mdm Speaker: Okay.

Original Motion, as amended, again put, and agreed to.

Mdm Speaker: I will take note of the abstentions on this side of the House [indicating the Opposition bench.]

Resolved,

"That this Parliament, pursuant to section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act –

(a) declares that the seat of Ms Lee Li Lian, who was elected a non-constituency Member of Parliament under section 52 of the Act, has become vacant by reason of her having failed to take and subscribe before Parliament the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first and second Sittings of the first session of the present Parliament; and

(b) resolves that the seat be filled in accordance with sections 52(2) and 52(3B)(a) of the Act;

(c) but regrets that Ms Lee Li Lian, having stood as a Workers' Party candidate and received the highest vote share among all losing Opposition candidates, has now decided to give up her NCMP seat to another candidate from her party with a lower vote share, contrary to the expressed will of the voters, and that the Workers' Party supports this political manoeuvre to take full advantage of the NCMP seat, even as its Secretary General criticises NCMPs as just 'duckweed on the water of the pond.' "