Constitutional Amendment Bill
By Sylvia Lim, NCMP
The Workers’ Party opposes the Bill.
I will first discuss the change in criminal procedure before moving on to the political changes.
Video-link for remand cases
Clause 2 of the Bill will take away a very important safeguard for suspects under police investigation.
Under the existing Article 9(4) of the Constitution, a suspect arrested by police can remain in police custody for a maximum of 48 hours and any further detention for police investigations will require a court order from a Magistrate. This has required the police to transport the suspect from the police lock-up facility to the court premises, to be produced in person before a judicial officer.
This physical removal from the police facility into a court, and being in the direct physical presence of the court, gives an assurance to the suspect that he has an independent party to complain to should he be undergoing any undue hardship during investigations. The Magistrate will also be able to observe the suspect’s physical condition, the way he walks, stands, and speaks, for signs of exhaustion, or even injury. This safeguard is very important at this stage of the case. Even though the suspect has a right to counsel under Article 9(2) of the Constitution, this right has been deferred by case law and is unlikely to be given at the point of 1st remand. This is unlike the jurisdictions mentioned by DPM Wong earlier who used video conferencing – in those countries, the right to counsel is much stronger, given even at the point of arrest, unlike in Singapore where it is deferred. This makes the court oversight here even more critical at this point when the investigations are still very hot and there is pressure to solve the case.
By allowing remand orders to be given via video-link, the suspect will no longer be brought to the independent court but to perhaps another room in a police facility, guarded by police. Under such constrained circumstances, will he have the confidence to raise any issues about the investigations or complaints against the police? Neither will the Magistrate sitting miles away be able to properly observe and assess his physical condition or other causes for concern.
We should not allow the logistical inconvenience of having to transport suspects to court to be a reason to derogate from their Constitutional rights. Neither should the recent incidents of near escapes from the court be another reason to avoid transporting suspects to court.
Changing any rights under the Fundamental Liberties in our Constitution deserves the utmost justification. The reasons given by the government are weak and the change will be a serious compromise to the safeguard intended by Article 9(4).
I next move on to the changes to the composition of Parliament.
Entrenching Nominated MPs in the system
The Workers’ Party’s position on NMPs remains the same and I do not intend to repeat what we have said through the years. In summary, we do not support having MPs who do not participate in the electoral process. We have voted against all motions to have NMPs in the past, and we will oppose their entrenchment.
I wish to focus the rest of my speech on the change on Non-Constituency MPs.
Increasing the number of NCMPs does not make system more robust
Clause 3 amends Article 39 to increase the maximum number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament from 6 to 9.
The Workers’ Party will oppose the amendment on the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. This change is an attempt by the Prime Minister to make a bad situation better. Yes, it improves the current situation and will give some recognition to the desire of the voters who supported opposition candidates in large numbers. However, the fundamental problem should be tackled at its root cause – the GRC system, and gerrymandering. Let me elaborate.
Last May, the Prime Minister told the House that the rationale for the increase in NCMPs was “to encourage a wider range of views in Parliament, including opposition and non-government views”. He said that it would “generate more robust debate and improve policy formulation”. The “most important” reason for the change, according to him, was to “keep Parliament in sync with the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans, and strengthen the role of Parliament as the key democratic institution where important national issues are deliberated and decided.”
It is good that the Prime Minister has an open mind towards alternative views. However, his vision of Parliament now seems to be as a sort of feedback unit, or even as a talk-shop. Is that all that Parliament, an Organ of State, should be? What happened to Parliament being a collective mandate of representation, where each MP who is there has a right to be there to make decisions for the people, because the people have so elected?
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, Parliament has a critical role as a check on the executive government. Parliament can only be legitimately formed after the General Elections, when the people decide who should be in Parliament to represent them. Even the PAP boasts that it faces the people every 5 years to get a mandate. But instead of acting in the national interest, the PAP government has over the years tinkered with the electoral system for its own political ends.
Allow me to trace some history, in case some of us have forgotten.
Changes to the system for the ruling party’s ends
The NCMP scheme was introduced in 1984. This was soon after the PAP lost just one elected seat in the 1981 Anson by-election, captured by Workers’ Party’s then secretary-general, the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam. However, the NCMP scheme did not stop the people from voting for opposition. In the 1984 GE, Mr Jeyaretnam retained his Anson seat with a larger majority, and in addition, Mr Chiam See Tong won convincingly at Potong Pasir with 60%. 1984 was the year when WP rejected the NCMP seat, not 1994 which DPM Wong said earlier.
In 1984 there had emerged a trend of declining support for the PAP. The PAP then came up with a double whammy to secure its political power – GRCs, and gerrymandering.
The ruling party introduced GRCs in the 1988 GE, despite the fact that minority candidates were defeating Chinese candidates at the prevoius GEs. The GRCs started with 3 member groupings. At that GE, WP’s team at Eunos GRC consisting of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Francis Seow and Mr Khalit Baboo, secured 49% of the votes against a PAP team.
By the next GE, 1991, GRCs had been expanded to 4 man teams. However, there were still 21 Single Member Constituencies (“SMCs”). At that election, voters elected 4 opposition MPs into Parliament in SMCs, including WP’s Mr Low Thia Khiang. This was the largest number of opposition Members elected since the Barisan Sosialis walk-out in the 1960s.
In the following GE, 1997, GRCs were again expanded, to even 6 man GRCs. No longer was there an attempt to explain these mega-GRCs as securing minority representation; instead, the excuse of economies of scale for Town Councils and Community Development Councils was used. Despite that, the Workers’ Party team in Cheng San GRC scored 45% with its team including Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Tang Liang Hong.
By this GE, the PAP’s expansion of the GRCs saw only 9 SMCs left, a drastic reduction from the 21 at the previous GE. Such was the PAP’s need to dominate. This tiny number of 9 has been with us till today, such that when the PM announces an increase of SMCs from 9 to 12, we hail this as progress!
Over the years, the PAP has itself admitted that the GRCs serve its party purposes. In 2006, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong noted that having GRCs helped recruit PAP candidates, since “without some assurance of a good chance of winning, at least, their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.” Minister Mentor had commented then on GRCs being useful training tools, since the Health Minister who was with him in Tanjong Pagar since the previous GE “should be ready to lead his own GRC team”.
The other twin pillar of the double whammy is gerrymandering. The entire electoral boundary re-drawing process is completely shrouded in secrecy, chaired by the Secretary to the Cabinet. There are no public hearings, no minutes of meeting published. The revised boundaries are released weeks or even days before Nomination Day. The report makes no attempt to explain why certain single seats are retained while others are dissolved, nor why new GRCs are created or old ones re-shaped. Voters have changed constituency at successive elections without moving a single step. Adam Road is now Tanjong Pagar, Serangoon Central is Marine Parade. Co-incidentally, constituencies which showed strong opposition support are broken up or merged with others. Today, we no longer have Eunos or Cheng San GRC.
A few days ago, the Prime Minister appeared on a TV interview with American journalist Charlie Rose and spoke of the importance of the moral right to govern. How does abusing the GRC system and gerrymandering square with a moral right to govern?
Limitations of NCMP role
There are serious limitations to NCMP seats and it is important to highlight to Singaporeans these limitations.
Besides not being able to vote on critical matters, we are considered as lacking in official capacity to represent the people. This was brought home in 1997 when Mr JB Jeyaretnam, who was then NCMP, filed a Parliamentary question asking whether any directive had been given to government departments not to reply to letters sent by him as NCMP. In the exchange which followed, the Home Affairs Minister reiterated the fact that NCMPs do not represent any particular constituency and therefore the government departments would only respond to letters by elected MPs or grassroots advisors on behalf of residents in those areas.
I have my own experiences of this reality.
I have been doing house visits in Aljunied GRC for several years. The residents have raised certain concerns to me which I have highlighted in Parliament as issues. However, I have no official capacity to write letters on their behalf regarding their specific cases, though I would very much want to.
In addition, an NCMP has no physical base. Under the Town Councils Act, the incumbent MP of a constituency will be in charge of the Town Council which controls the use of common space. As for the Community Clubs, these are in the hands of the People’s Association. It is next to impossible for an opposing candidate to be allowed to use a space to organize activities or dialogues. We have applied for permission to use spaces in PAP wards, and received expected rejections. On the other hand, ruling party hopefuls in opposition wards are appointed advisors to grassroots organisations, thereby apparently having status to liaise with HDB and other government departments on behalf of residents!
It may well be that what the PAP wants is complete dominance, with non-PAP voices provided through NMP and NCMP schemes. But what would happen if the PAP starts to falter or be corrupt? A good political system is one which can provide sustainable checks on the ruling party, through the people having real bargaining power through the presence of elected opposition members. This will serve as a strong incentive for the ruling party to perform and pay heed to the people’s desires. Elected opposition members are a manifestation of a challenge to the ruling party, not just in Parliament, but on the ground.
It is not in the national interest to promote a system where the survival of the country becomes so intertwined with the fate of one political party that the people are left hostage. Instead of worrying about the MPs’ debating skills, the PM should worry more about whether each of his MPs has the support of the people, which an SMC system would automatically cure.
In conclusion, Sir, let me summarise. By this Bill, the PM is trying to make a bad situation better, but increasing NCMPs is not the solution towards a more robust political system. The root causes of our current problems, resulting in the imbalance in Parliament, are the abuse of the GRC system, and gerrymandering. These have curtailed the expression of the people’s desires at the elections, and instead promoted the ruling party’s own agenda. The PAP has created the problem which it is trying to cure. But we should instead tackle the root causes for a more lasting and sustainable political future for Singapore.
For these reasons, the Workers’ Party opposes the Bill. The Member for Hougang will be voting against the amendment, as I cannot vote!
By Sylvia Lim, NCMP
The Workers’ Party opposes the Bill.
I will first discuss the change in criminal procedure before moving on to the political changes.
Video-link for remand cases
Clause 2 of the Bill will take away a very important safeguard for suspects under police investigation.
Under the existing Article 9(4) of the Constitution, a suspect arrested by police can remain in police custody for a maximum of 48 hours and any further detention for police investigations will require a court order from a Magistrate. This has required the police to transport the suspect from the police lock-up facility to the court premises, to be produced in person before a judicial officer.
This physical removal from the police facility into a court, and being in the direct physical presence of the court, gives an assurance to the suspect that he has an independent party to complain to should he be undergoing any undue hardship during investigations. The Magistrate will also be able to observe the suspect’s physical condition, the way he walks, stands, and speaks, for signs of exhaustion, or even injury. This safeguard is very important at this stage of the case. Even though the suspect has a right to counsel under Article 9(2) of the Constitution, this right has been deferred by case law and is unlikely to be given at the point of 1st remand. This is unlike the jurisdictions mentioned by DPM Wong earlier who used video conferencing – in those countries, the right to counsel is much stronger, given even at the point of arrest, unlike in Singapore where it is deferred. This makes the court oversight here even more critical at this point when the investigations are still very hot and there is pressure to solve the case.
By allowing remand orders to be given via video-link, the suspect will no longer be brought to the independent court but to perhaps another room in a police facility, guarded by police. Under such constrained circumstances, will he have the confidence to raise any issues about the investigations or complaints against the police? Neither will the Magistrate sitting miles away be able to properly observe and assess his physical condition or other causes for concern.
We should not allow the logistical inconvenience of having to transport suspects to court to be a reason to derogate from their Constitutional rights. Neither should the recent incidents of near escapes from the court be another reason to avoid transporting suspects to court.
Changing any rights under the Fundamental Liberties in our Constitution deserves the utmost justification. The reasons given by the government are weak and the change will be a serious compromise to the safeguard intended by Article 9(4).
I next move on to the changes to the composition of Parliament.
Entrenching Nominated MPs in the system
The Workers’ Party’s position on NMPs remains the same and I do not intend to repeat what we have said through the years. In summary, we do not support having MPs who do not participate in the electoral process. We have voted against all motions to have NMPs in the past, and we will oppose their entrenchment.
I wish to focus the rest of my speech on the change on Non-Constituency MPs.
Increasing the number of NCMPs does not make system more robust
Clause 3 amends Article 39 to increase the maximum number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament from 6 to 9.
The Workers’ Party will oppose the amendment on the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. This change is an attempt by the Prime Minister to make a bad situation better. Yes, it improves the current situation and will give some recognition to the desire of the voters who supported opposition candidates in large numbers. However, the fundamental problem should be tackled at its root cause – the GRC system, and gerrymandering. Let me elaborate.
Last May, the Prime Minister told the House that the rationale for the increase in NCMPs was “to encourage a wider range of views in Parliament, including opposition and non-government views”. He said that it would “generate more robust debate and improve policy formulation”. The “most important” reason for the change, according to him, was to “keep Parliament in sync with the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans, and strengthen the role of Parliament as the key democratic institution where important national issues are deliberated and decided.”
It is good that the Prime Minister has an open mind towards alternative views. However, his vision of Parliament now seems to be as a sort of feedback unit, or even as a talk-shop. Is that all that Parliament, an Organ of State, should be? What happened to Parliament being a collective mandate of representation, where each MP who is there has a right to be there to make decisions for the people, because the people have so elected?
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, Parliament has a critical role as a check on the executive government. Parliament can only be legitimately formed after the General Elections, when the people decide who should be in Parliament to represent them. Even the PAP boasts that it faces the people every 5 years to get a mandate. But instead of acting in the national interest, the PAP government has over the years tinkered with the electoral system for its own political ends.
Allow me to trace some history, in case some of us have forgotten.
Changes to the system for the ruling party’s ends
The NCMP scheme was introduced in 1984. This was soon after the PAP lost just one elected seat in the 1981 Anson by-election, captured by Workers’ Party’s then secretary-general, the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam. However, the NCMP scheme did not stop the people from voting for opposition. In the 1984 GE, Mr Jeyaretnam retained his Anson seat with a larger majority, and in addition, Mr Chiam See Tong won convincingly at Potong Pasir with 60%. 1984 was the year when WP rejected the NCMP seat, not 1994 which DPM Wong said earlier.
In 1984 there had emerged a trend of declining support for the PAP. The PAP then came up with a double whammy to secure its political power – GRCs, and gerrymandering.
The ruling party introduced GRCs in the 1988 GE, despite the fact that minority candidates were defeating Chinese candidates at the prevoius GEs. The GRCs started with 3 member groupings. At that GE, WP’s team at Eunos GRC consisting of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Francis Seow and Mr Khalit Baboo, secured 49% of the votes against a PAP team.
By the next GE, 1991, GRCs had been expanded to 4 man teams. However, there were still 21 Single Member Constituencies (“SMCs”). At that election, voters elected 4 opposition MPs into Parliament in SMCs, including WP’s Mr Low Thia Khiang. This was the largest number of opposition Members elected since the Barisan Sosialis walk-out in the 1960s.
In the following GE, 1997, GRCs were again expanded, to even 6 man GRCs. No longer was there an attempt to explain these mega-GRCs as securing minority representation; instead, the excuse of economies of scale for Town Councils and Community Development Councils was used. Despite that, the Workers’ Party team in Cheng San GRC scored 45% with its team including Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Tang Liang Hong.
By this GE, the PAP’s expansion of the GRCs saw only 9 SMCs left, a drastic reduction from the 21 at the previous GE. Such was the PAP’s need to dominate. This tiny number of 9 has been with us till today, such that when the PM announces an increase of SMCs from 9 to 12, we hail this as progress!
Over the years, the PAP has itself admitted that the GRCs serve its party purposes. In 2006, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong noted that having GRCs helped recruit PAP candidates, since “without some assurance of a good chance of winning, at least, their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.” Minister Mentor had commented then on GRCs being useful training tools, since the Health Minister who was with him in Tanjong Pagar since the previous GE “should be ready to lead his own GRC team”.
The other twin pillar of the double whammy is gerrymandering. The entire electoral boundary re-drawing process is completely shrouded in secrecy, chaired by the Secretary to the Cabinet. There are no public hearings, no minutes of meeting published. The revised boundaries are released weeks or even days before Nomination Day. The report makes no attempt to explain why certain single seats are retained while others are dissolved, nor why new GRCs are created or old ones re-shaped. Voters have changed constituency at successive elections without moving a single step. Adam Road is now Tanjong Pagar, Serangoon Central is Marine Parade. Co-incidentally, constituencies which showed strong opposition support are broken up or merged with others. Today, we no longer have Eunos or Cheng San GRC.
A few days ago, the Prime Minister appeared on a TV interview with American journalist Charlie Rose and spoke of the importance of the moral right to govern. How does abusing the GRC system and gerrymandering square with a moral right to govern?
Limitations of NCMP role
There are serious limitations to NCMP seats and it is important to highlight to Singaporeans these limitations.
Besides not being able to vote on critical matters, we are considered as lacking in official capacity to represent the people. This was brought home in 1997 when Mr JB Jeyaretnam, who was then NCMP, filed a Parliamentary question asking whether any directive had been given to government departments not to reply to letters sent by him as NCMP. In the exchange which followed, the Home Affairs Minister reiterated the fact that NCMPs do not represent any particular constituency and therefore the government departments would only respond to letters by elected MPs or grassroots advisors on behalf of residents in those areas.
I have my own experiences of this reality.
I have been doing house visits in Aljunied GRC for several years. The residents have raised certain concerns to me which I have highlighted in Parliament as issues. However, I have no official capacity to write letters on their behalf regarding their specific cases, though I would very much want to.
In addition, an NCMP has no physical base. Under the Town Councils Act, the incumbent MP of a constituency will be in charge of the Town Council which controls the use of common space. As for the Community Clubs, these are in the hands of the People’s Association. It is next to impossible for an opposing candidate to be allowed to use a space to organize activities or dialogues. We have applied for permission to use spaces in PAP wards, and received expected rejections. On the other hand, ruling party hopefuls in opposition wards are appointed advisors to grassroots organisations, thereby apparently having status to liaise with HDB and other government departments on behalf of residents!
It may well be that what the PAP wants is complete dominance, with non-PAP voices provided through NMP and NCMP schemes. But what would happen if the PAP starts to falter or be corrupt? A good political system is one which can provide sustainable checks on the ruling party, through the people having real bargaining power through the presence of elected opposition members. This will serve as a strong incentive for the ruling party to perform and pay heed to the people’s desires. Elected opposition members are a manifestation of a challenge to the ruling party, not just in Parliament, but on the ground.
It is not in the national interest to promote a system where the survival of the country becomes so intertwined with the fate of one political party that the people are left hostage. Instead of worrying about the MPs’ debating skills, the PM should worry more about whether each of his MPs has the support of the people, which an SMC system would automatically cure.
In conclusion, Sir, let me summarise. By this Bill, the PM is trying to make a bad situation better, but increasing NCMPs is not the solution towards a more robust political system. The root causes of our current problems, resulting in the imbalance in Parliament, are the abuse of the GRC system, and gerrymandering. These have curtailed the expression of the people’s desires at the elections, and instead promoted the ruling party’s own agenda. The PAP has created the problem which it is trying to cure. But we should instead tackle the root causes for a more lasting and sustainable political future for Singapore.
For these reasons, the Workers’ Party opposes the Bill. The Member for Hougang will be voting against the amendment, as I cannot vote!
