Lee Siew-Choh
Singapore
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here.”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids.”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Lee Siew-Choh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 17.
“Sir, I have made no allegation about Eunos at all. He has made a mistake. I have already said it was 1972.”
“Sir, I believe the Prime Minister admitted that under cross-examination in court.”
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened. Going to court for an election petition means money. We are all poor as church mice. We could not afford it. So we just let it pass. That is how it was. As regards the other thing about the election boycott, I only mentioned that at the last minute. That is what the Secretary-General asked me to say. That does not mean that I agree with every word. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with me in saying this.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers? On one occasion, Sir, I called a press conference and pointed out the discrepancy of the number of votes cast against the number of votes counted on the table. The newspapermen took everything down. But the next morning in the press, "All the votes tallied very nicely". We have a press which is completely controlled by Government. So it is not that easy. Moreover, when things like this happens, do they give us the publicity and allow us to speak on TV so that the people will know about it?”
“Tommy Koh is a very respectable person who, everybody acknowledges, seeks the truth. He has said that that number is intimidatory and should be removed from the ballot paper. He has also pointed out that if the perforation or marks should be made, or the initials made on the ballot paper by the presiding officer, then there would be no possibility of fraud. I have also suggested a few other possibilities by which the Government could prevent fraud. But he has not touched on them, he has not answered them. He just said, "I do not propose to repeat". What has he repeated? Nothing. He has not said anything in reply. He has not answered. How could he repeat? On the point about going on the same vehicle, he has given the scenario of so many polling officers and polling agents being in the same bus, but the bus is big enough. If they are there, it would not do the Government any harm. What is there to fear? At least, it will be reassuring, and nobody can say that the Government has tampered with those ballot boxes. He mentioned a little while ago that the ballot boxes are sealed, you sign on the seals and the boxes are supposed to be opened in front of the candidates. But I can assure you, Sir, that such things may never be done. In some places, they were done, but not in all places. Sir, there was one occasion, before I arrived, when all the ballot boxes were already on the table. How could you check? It is impossible to check. Yet he is telling me all the stories to indicate that you could check. Those are not real safeguards, Sir. And they are not really workable. I believe that what I have suggested are all very reasonable amendments, none of which the Government cannot accept, that is, if the Government should really allow free and fair elections in Singapore.”
“They were scared that if they did not vote for the PAP, they would be penalized and that something unpleasant might happen to them. These fears are things which you cannot just whiff away. This amendment is not a wish-list that we want to put in. It is something which every reasonable man wants to see in Singapore, namely, that the number should not be in the ballot paper. The Minister quotes the example of UK and other countries. Well, there are so many things which they are doing in UK. Why does Government not practise them? Follow the same practices. I challenge the Minister to say yes. Would he dare? He smiles. He would not dare. Because the PAP selectively implement only provisions which help to give all the best advantages to the PAP Government today. The ballot paper number would be used in an underhand way, with a whispering campaign. Their RCs or whatever would go along and tell the people, "Careful, there is a number on the back of the ballot paper." So many people are scared. We do not raise the issue. We do not want to raise it. We would want to hush it up. But these are objective facts, Sir, which cannot be wished away. As a responsible Government, I think it is only right that the Government should get rid of this number so that nobody need have fears. Then voters can really vote freely. Whether fairly or not is another matter, but at least freely, meaning that they do not have to worry about what might happen to them and things like that. I quoted those excerpts of the three stages of voting. The Minister has not answered them. Has he? He has not. Because he knows that what I say is true. Many prominent lawyers have said that this voting procedure renders fraud impossible. Why can we not accept that? Prof.”
“Sir, the Minister has not touched on some of the issues which I have raised and his excuse is that he does not propose to repeat them. He has not repeated anything. The issues which I want him to answer, he has not answered. He brings in the excuse that Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam have both accepted the number on the ballot paper. Sir, this issue is not a new issue. This issue was brought up long before Mr Jeyaretnam, or Mr Chiam, came on to the political scene. We brought it up long, long ago. Later on, we discovered to our dismay that because we brought it up, we actually did make people more frightened. And because of that, we tried to reassure the people saying that the vote was secret and that everything was all right. Nevertheless, the Minister has not answered the complaint of the 1966 Constitutional Commission. Neither has he answered what Mr Barker said in this House, nor what Mr Lee Kuan Yew admitted in court, namely, that the vote is not secret. I do not raise this issue of fear only now. This is the only chance I have to speak of this issue in Parliament. All along we had been making the complaint outside Parliament, and you know what the press is. The press publishes only what the Government says, not what the Opposition says. Do we have a fair press? No. Right from the very first days in 1963. Sir, whether you agree or not, it is not we who raise the fears. The fear is an objective fact. Subjectively, we might wish to say that it does not exist. But it is an objective fact which exists. We do not raise the question of the number on the ballot paper. The voters themselves come along to us. Even a psychologist in the army quoted, as an example, of what had happened to some national servicemen. They were fearful, not just kiasu.”
“In order to ensure that the election is clean, as I have said in my main speech, the number of ballot papers counted on the counting table must tally with the number of ballot papers cast by the voters. It must tally exactly. If 100 people have voted, then 100 ballot papers must be counted on the counting table. If there is a discrepancy, then something must be wrong. In the 1963 elections, candidates could inquire from the polling stations' presiding officers the number of votes that had been cast by a certain time. But since 1972, (and there was something very fishy about 1972 but I would not go into that today) the polling stations' presiding officers had been instructed not to divulge the number of votes cast to the candidate who asked for it. I see no reason why the number of votes cast should not be divulged by the presiding officers to the candidates. As I have said, this is to allow the candidate to find out exactly how many votes had been cast and check that number against the number of ballot papers on the counting table. The Government does not lose anything with this amendment as it has been saying that it is a clean Government. Good. I support a clean Government. Make it cleaner still. Make sure that everything is completely above board. If I were to tell you of our experience of 1972, that would take a little while. So I will skip that. I would also suggest that before the presiding officers in the counting centre start to count the votes, the number of votes cast should be publicly announced and the candidates informed, so that they will be in a better position to check the number of votes cast against the votes counted on the table.”
“If the Government is really serious about preventing fraud, like preventing voters from voting twice, then the Government could provide for some form of voters' attendance list where the voter goes along, votes and marks his attendance. He gives the I/C number and it is checked against a register, and that register could always be used to check whether a genuine voter has gone along to vote. Or the Government could make the voter go along with the postcard which the Government sends to every voter. The voter's postcard would be kept by the presiding officer and, if necessary, if there should be complaints, it could be used to check whether the person who has voted was a genuine or not a genuine voter. I have also, Sir, suggested two new sub-sections (4) and (5) to clause 31. Sub-section (4) is necessary because there have been instances, in the past, of ballot boxes not having been collected from the polling stations. This actually happened in the 1980 elections when a ballot box was left in a polling station in Telok Blangah. It was left there for about twenty minutes while the other ballot boxes had been transported to the counting centre. This amendment is intended to prevent a further repetition of such mishaps. We also feel that the polling agents should be allowed to accompany the boxes from the polling stations to the counting centre. This will prevent any possible suspicion that some of the ballot boxes might have been tampered with while they are being transported from the polling station to the counting centre. If the Government should accept this amendment, it would not lose anything by it. The third amendment which, I feel, is a very important one, is to clause 36(3).”
“And though we may try to assure the voters that Government will not attempt to find out how they have voted (we have done that, Sir, explaining the Government's position that it will not try to find out), the fact remains that the non-secrecy of the vote has created fears in the minds of the voters. There are safeguards. But, as I have said, they do not explain the importance of the issue, namely, of the fear. And I believe that the Government, having created the fear in the minds of the people, should have the duty and responsibility to remove that fear. Can anybody stuff a lot of papers into the ballot box? Yes, certainly. But I believe if such things were done, then it would not have been done by the Opposition. They do not have the facilities. Only the Government has. The Government could, if it wanted to. This has happened in many countries. And although such things have happened in other countries, we have at no time said that the Government has done a dirty job like that, at least for the last 10 years, I would say. Before that, it is another story. Sir, just for the sake of argument, even if a few fraudulent ballot papers should be put into the ballot boxes, they would be very small in number and can be easily detected because they would not have the stamp, the perforation and the initial made by the presiding officer. So what need is there to fear of fraud so long as the Government itself plays clean? The main thing is that, as the Minister himself has stressed, there is a clean government. Yes, let there be a clean government. But what happens if a future government is not that clean? We have got to provide for and prevent what might happen. There are also other ways of preventing fraud, Sir.”
“Therefore, these steps already tell us that the ballot papers that are given to the voters are genuine ballot papers. There is no fraud possible under those circumstances. The second stage of that sub-clause says, and I quote: "... the number, name and description of the voter, as stated in the copy of the register of electors, shall be called out... " This confirms that the voter is a genuine voter whose name is already listed in the electoral register, otherwise he would not have been there to get his ballot paper to vote. So what need is there to have the number? Sub-clause (3) says: "... and the number of the elector shall be marked on the counterfoil [these are the dangerous words], and a mark shall be placed in the register against the number of the elector to denote that he has received a ballot paper but without showing the particular ballot paper which he has received." The first two steps that I have mentioned, Sir, already confirm that only a genuine ballot paper is given to a voter. If only a genuine ballot paper is given to a voter, there is no need to fear of fraud. A bogus voter would not be able to go along to claim for a ballot paper. Moreover, a ballot paper that is not stamped or perforated or initialled by the presiding officer will not be accepted as a genuine ballot paper. So the numbering on the ballot paper is unnecessary and superfluous. But if the electoral number is marked on the counterfoil which also has a number, then it would be possible to identify the voter and know how he has voted, which makes nonsense of the secrecy of the vote.”
“Why do we not allow voters a chance to vote freely according to their wishes and without fear? So I stress again and again that this number should be taken off the ballot paper. Clause 25(3), which explains how the voting is being done, creates more fears in the minds of the voters. And this should be stopped, because when the polling station officers shout and call out the names of the voters in the polling stations, and when the voters see their electoral numbers being marked on the counterfoil, it gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Government would know how they have voted. So why do we not get rid of this fear? Give voters a chance to know that the Government would not know how they have voted. I have never said that the Government tries to find out how people have voted. We know that it has not done so. But the point, I stress again, is not whether the Government tries to find out or not find out. The question is, do we want to remove this fear in the minds of the people? And I believe that we must try and remove this fear. The Minister was talking about fraud. I do not know, Sir. It is not that easy to commit fraud. You look at the Bill. There are three steps laid down in clause 25(3). The first step is: "... the ballot paper shall be stamped on the back or perforated with the official mark or initialled by the presiding officer ... (I mentioned this in my speech during the Second Reading)." This procedure should ensure that only the genuine ballot papers are used. No outsider should have possession of the official stamp. Neither should he have the official perforator. And none of them can hope to be able to initial like the presiding officer.”
“I refer now to clause 23(2) concerning ballot papers. I think it is clear that this number on the ballot paper has created a lot of fears in the hearts and minds of many voters. We in the Opposition have realised that, and we were also afraid of even mentioning this number on the ballot paper because it might have the effect of making voters fear more. So for the last few elections, Sir, we have not touched on the issue at all. But now that we have this Bill before the House, I think it is appropriate that we should discuss it. This is an issue which is not new. This is an issue which we raised long, long ago in 1963. But this is the first time I have a chance to speak in this House concerning the number on the ballot paper. The Government has given no good reason to have that number on the ballot paper. And of course the real reason why the Government insists on having that number is to use it to frighten and intimidate voters, to create fears in the minds of the voters. Surely if the Government wants a free and fair election (I see our Foreign Minister nodding his head, that is what he has asked for in Cambodia), would it also allow that in Singapore? The Minister has not countered what the 1966 Constitutional Commission has said. He has not countered what other people have also complained about. In fact, if I remember rightly, Sir, the Straits Times, the New Nation, and many other papers had also attacked the number on the ballot paper. They all had asked why the Government did not want to help remove the fear in the minds of the people. The issue is in fact not just the number itself. The number causes fear. The issue is fear. Do we want to have fears in the minds of voters?”
“May I say a few words on what the Minister has just said. He has forgotten to mention what I have tried to emphasise, namely, that anybody who wishes to contest elections must have a target date to work towards. They must know the date exactly so that they can take time to prepare towards that particular date. If the Government should announce elections only a short while before the actual election date, that does not give other people sufficient time. I agree with what Mr Chiam has said, namely, that the time and the notice given should be reasonable. I am prepared to accept 14 days if the Government should accept the 14 days. But knowing what the Government is, I have proposed 30 days to see what the response is. So, Sir, the time is definitely too short. What we want is a fair democratic election, and the Minister has not addressed that issue. Neither has he addressed the issue about the voters needing more time to study and know exactly what the position is all about so that they can vote according to the best information that they have. And the only way to place all the information before voters is to allow more time for the notice as well as for the election itself.”
“In a parliamentary election, the party has the machinery and could still carry out work in between the elections. But for a single person who has got no party affiliations, it will definitely be a disadvantage to him. Besides, if he is a man, such as a banker or a judge, who has got no political career to give him that publicity, his exposure will not be as good as that of a political figure, say, a Minister. You can see the inherent injustice there. Whereas a Minister or a politician will get the constant exposure of the media. But for some other person who qualifies, say, a judge, a businessman or a banker, he does not get the same sort of exposure. So if you are going to limit him to only nine days, and not a slightly longer period, he would not even get to start off the ground. Nine days may only be the beginning. Before he can even make himself known, polling day is already at hand. Therefore, I say that for this particular election, where very few people are involved, and it is possible that they may not have such great exposure, I think it is very reasonable to amend it to three weeks.”
“Sir, I would support the amendment to clause 7 in regard to the extension of time to more than four days. I think the reasons given by the Minister are not very convincing. Even if the whole population of Singapore knows exactly when the Presidential election is to be held, I think the time should be still more than four days. The issue is not whether people know or do not know when the elections would be held. But I think the issue is whether or not reasonable time is given. For all events, they must always be given a reasonable time. Even if you are invited to somebody's dinner, they will give you a reasonable time. They do not just give you one hour's notice and say, "come along". There is no such thing. Even to pay up your licence fee, they will give you a reasonable time, a month, to pay up. Even a notice to quit, they will give you a reasonable time to pack up things and go. Everything that we know of, there must be a reasonable time. If you want to sack an employee, you cannot sack him all of a sudden, unless of course you pay him money in lieu. Why? Because you have not given him reasonable time. Take a poll here, and if you are reasonable people, you will see that we will get a majority vote that four days are definitely not reasonable for the election of the President of Singapore. I am convinced of that. I know I am right and all of you know that I am right but you still would not say so. I am not asking for an unreasonable time. I am saying "14 days", which is very reasonable. If this is a reasonable House, you will certainly make this reasonable amendment. The other small matter that I would like to mention is the election time of nine days. This again is definitely not reasonable in the case of a Presidential election. There is the inherent unfairness.”
“This is a very minor amendment, but since I have put up an amendment I want to touch on it as well. I have also proposed two new sub-clauses to clause 8. We feel that the PEC's work is of the utmost importance. Examination of the aspiring candidate in public would fit in well with the Prime Minister's new style of an open government. It is important that the public can see how the PEC works, and how it is satisfied that the person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. The Minister quotes an example of somebody not wanting his name to be divulged unless he was nominated. This is proof that the fear exists even among the very top of the better classes in Singapore. It shows that what we have been saying about ballot paper numbers and so on is not far-fetched. It is true. The fear is there all the time. We also feel that reasons for its decisions should be given by the PEC so that their reasons may serve as precedents to indicate to future aspiring candidates and the people what standards they may go by. If they do not reach up to those particular standards, as explained by the PEC, then they would not need to try to take part in the election. There is a very minor amendment to clause 9(6). It is only intended to ensure that the Returning Officer does not have the option or discretion of whether or not to supply the nomination form to a registered elector requiring the form. That is why I propose that the word "may" should be changed to "shall". It means that the Returning Officer does not have any option. It is mandatory for him to supply that form. These form the first part of the amendments. Question proposed. Mr Chiam See Tong: May I just have my say, Sir. It is very short.”
“But is that realistic? Opposition people have to work. They are not full time politicians like the Ministers with fat salaries sitting there who can do whatever they like with their time. We have to earn our living. Under those circumstances, we are not as well placed as Government Ministers or those who are supported by the PAP Government. Moreover, we must remember that if the ruling party should support any prospective or aspiring candidate, it will have ample funds, is well prepared in every way and will not have to be concerned with the fear in the minds of many voters. We have to deal with all that. To be fair, the election time should therefore be extended. As I have said, Sir, the extension of election time is not just to benefit the Opposition party or candidate who contests against a PAP-proposed candidate, but the people, the voters themselves. They need the time to know more of what the PAP or its candidate has proposed. They need time to digest the programmes and policies which may be placed before them. That will take some time. It is not that easy as the Minister says. So all this is very important. Because if the people are not given the chance and the time to go through all this, then they will not be well informed, and not be able, under those circumstances, to elect on the basis of informed opinions. The minor amendment to clause 22, Sir, is to remind the authorities that those employed in the polling stations as presiding officers or police officers need not have to go through the bother and inconvenience of getting certificates from the Returning Officer in order to go to vote. If these people could be allotted work in the vicinity of their polling stations, then that clause may not be really necessary.”
“There is also the possibility that a person who is not proposed by the PAP being rejected as a candidate. If the time is too short, then there may not be enough time to get a substitute. It is not that easy to have substitutes standing by to contest against the PAP candidates. Therefore, reasonable time should be given to anybody to contest elections against the PAP, or its proposed candidates. And, of course, Sir, I must also remind the PAP that all this is not just to please the Opposition. It is to make sure that there is a fair and democratic election, whether it is for the President, or for other Parliamentary candidates. 4.15 pm Concerning the issue of review in court in clause 8, I just want to emphasise that the PEC could make mistakes and that there could be bitter complaints of unfairness. Therefore, although it is not so laid down in the Constitution, candidates who have complaints should be allowed a chance to appeal to a court of law so that justice may be seen to be done. Concerning clause 16, Sir, I think everybody knows that the electioneering period of nine days is definitely too short. The PAP has a lot of time to make propaganda, and it has TV, radio and the press - all doing its propaganda work day in day out, all the year round. But other people will not have the same facilities. People who support Opposition candidates will find that they have hardly any time at all for this. The Minister says that they can always buy advertisements in the newspapers. That is very expensive. As I have said, such things can only be done by very rich political parties or by very rich persons, and that is not going to lead to a fair and democratic election if the PAP insists on those conditions. Of course, we realise that everybody should be prepared long beforehand.”
“Sir, concerning clause 7, notice of the election, we must remember that the PAP Government likes to spring surprises on the Opposition and they are likely to be snap elections. All these years since 1963, the PAP has been springing snap elections on the Opposition. In this particular case, although the Minister has explained that one should be prepared long before, nevertheless, the time is still too short. As already touched on by Mr Chiam, from the time of writ to the time of nomination, there are lots of things which we have got to do. We have to rush and do them, all in only four days. It is going to be a mad rush, and it is going to be very difficult for anybody who is not supported by the PAP Government. Mistakes could be made. I want to stress that in other countries, the notification is given well in advance - three weeks, four weeks, one or two months. I believe that this is intended to allow those who oppose the Government's proposed candidates adequate time to prepare so that they may work towards the target date. They must know exactly when the election is to be, so that they can slowly prepare towards that particular target date. And if you did that, then all the people who contest against the Government candidates, or the Government nominees, will at least have a better chance of a fair and democratic election. We are not thinking of a completely level playing field, Sir. But do not forget, we are now in the 1990s and we have to play according to new rules, not the rules of 1963. The PAP has a lot of in-built advantages. I do not think it should fear competition from anybody. And if it allows a fair contest against the PAP candidates in a fair and democratic election, the person proposed by the PAP, if elected, will get a better name.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here. I propose that my amendments be dealt with in two groups. The first group concerns times for certain acts to be done and are my amendments to clauses 7, 8, 9 and 16. The second group concerns ballot papers. amendments - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BILL (Cols. 291 - 294)”
“Finally, let me say once again that the whole procedure prescribed in the Bill is undemocratic and unfair. It will not bring about free and fair elections. In order to have democratic, free and fair elections, Government will have to take appropriate steps to amend or remove certain undemocratic and unfair provisions in the Bill. For example, lifting restrictions placed on the qualifications of Presidential candidates; providing early notice and adequate time for an election; removal of the number on the ballot paper and so getting rid of the fears in the minds of voters; and establishing an independent Elections Commission, would certainly go a long way towards achieving free and fair elections in Singapore. If that should come about, then that would be a most significant big step forward on what the Government calls the next lap. All Singaporeans would rejoice and be justifiably proud. If, on the other hand, it should continue to ignore constructive and concrete proposals that have been put forward by opposition parties and the people to promote a democratic society in Singapore, then the PAP would stand further exposed as a dictatorial government, which preaches consultative democracy but which in fact refuses even to provide free and fair elections in Singapore. Finally, the Secretary-General of the Party has just asked me to say that the Workers' Party might be compelled to call for a boycott in protest when the time comes.”
“I have also suggested amendments to clause 36(3). To prevent fraud, it is imperative that the total number of votes counted on the counting table tally exactly with the total number of votes cast. Candidates must be informed by the presiding officers of the total number of votes that have been cast by voters, at various polling stations at all times, and especially when polling ends. That would allow the candidate to check the total number of votes cast against the total number of votes counted on the counting table. Clause 26 provides for compulsory voting and anyone who has failed to vote could be imposed a fine of $5. Clause 63 seeks to punish anyone who attempts to persuade voters from voting. Both these provisions violate the basic right of a voter to withhold his vote, and his right to persuade others to join him not to cast vote. Therefore, these clauses are archaic and should be done away with. Similarly, provisions in clauses 65 and 66 are unnecessarily restrictive. For example, what is wrong with students from junior colleges taking part in election activities, since the Government has already encouraged many of the students to take an active interest in politics? Again, what is wrong with an undischarged bankrupt taking part in election activities? Why is it necessary for candidates to submit particulars of all the election helpers to the Returning Officer and the Commissioner of Police? Then there is clause 66 which seeks to punish five or more persons who together perhaps attend an election meeting and ask questions of speakers. All these provisions, Sir, are intimidatory, and they could be used by the Government to intimidate voters who do not support the Government.”
“Hitherto, the PAP excuse for having the number on the ballot paper is that it is needed to prevent fraud. But the argument is hardly convincing. In these days of high technology and electronic surveillance, there is no reason why other modern methods cannot be used to prevent fraud. Moreover, as clearly stated in clause 25 and pointed out by Prof. Tommy Koh long ago, and I quote, "Immediately before any ballot paper is delivered to a voter, the ballot paper shall be stamped on the back or perforated with the official mark or initialled by the presiding officer". That makes it impossible for a voter to vote twice or more times. How then could fraud be perpetrated? The PAP Government has often advocated free and fair elections in Cambodia. Does it also advocate the same in Singapore? If the Government wishes to ensure that there should be free and fair elections in Singapore, then it is absolutely necessary for the Government to do away with the numbering of ballot papers. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to get rid of this nagging fear implanted in the minds of the voters by the PAP. Before I close, let me touch lightly on a few other important issues. In past elections, there had been problems connected with ballot boxes that were transported from polling stations to the counting centres. On one occasion, a ballot box was left behind in the polling station when other boxes were taken to the counting centre. On other occasions, there were complaints that the buses transporting the ballot boxes had taken devious routes. Such lapses or irregularities, whether as a result of oversight or otherwise, could give rise to unnecessary disputes. I have therefore suggested amendments to provide against such happenings again.”
“As is commonly known to all those who have taken part in elections, when the number, name and description of the voter is called out in a loud voice by the election official, and the number of the elector is clearly seen by the elector to be marked on the counterfoil by another election official, the effect on the elector can be quite traumatic. He will be frightened and could even be intimidated into voting for the PAP much against his will. However, as a result of education and frequent reassurances from Opposition parties, this fear on the part of the voter has been greatly reduced. The ice was broken by the voters when they voted in J.B. Jeyaretnam in Anson in 1981. And today nearly 40% of electors have cast their votes for the Opposition. But many people still harbour such fears. And though we in the Opposition parties have not spoken on the number on the ballot paper over the last few elections, nevertheless there are people, including professionals, Government officials, teachers and national servicemen, who would still come forth to ask whether or not Government would find out how they have voted. The nagging fear remains. And the Government cannot say that it is not aware of the fear in the minds of Singapore voters that their votes may be known to the Government authorities. With such fears in the minds of the voters, the elections in Singapore have never been free and fair elections, that is, elections with voters voting freely without fear, according to their true wishes, for candidates of their choice. Why then does the PAP Government continue to print numbers on ballot papers? Why is it essential to have the number on the ballot paper? What plausible reason is there for the number on the ballot paper?”
“Clause 23(2) states that: 'Every ballot paper shall --- (d) have a number printed on the back; and (e) have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face.' This number on the ballot paper is completely out of tune with the present-day Singapore of the 1990s. It is an anachronism, and must be done away with, as it violates the secrecy of the vote, a most basic principle of democratic elections. The Report of the 1966 Constitutional Commission recommended that the ballot papers should not be numbered. Paragraph 43 of the Report states, and I quote: "this provision [that is, of a number on the ballot paper] is inconsistent with the right to secrecy of the vote." This violation of the secrecy of the vote was admitted by Mr Barker, then Minister for Law and Development, in this very House itself in 1967, and later on by Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself in open court in 1978. And it has been publicly criticised by many people, including Prof. Tommy Koh and Mr David Marshall, both respected members of the public and now of the establishment. This number on the ballot paper has frightened many people into believing, rightly or wrongly, that the Government might, or would, check on the ballot papers and come to know how they have voted, bringing with it dire consequences for those people who have voted for the Opposition and against the PAP Government. This fear that Government would find out how they have voted is heightened by the manner of voting that is prescribed in clause 25(3).”
“The PAP invariably allows the Opposition only nine, at most 10, days for electioneering. But today the PAP frequently boasts of political stability. We are entering a new technological age. And the PAP has always said that it likes competition from Opposition parties. Why then the indecent haste to hold elections in a short period of only nine days? Is it not time that all political parties be given adequate time for the electioneering as in other countries that practise parliamentary democracy? What is the PAP afraid of? Let us not forget, Sir, that those who really benefit with more time for elections are not the Opposition parties, but the voters themselves. Voters need more time to know about the political stand, policies and programmes of the different political parties, and also of the Presidential candidates. They need to vote on the basis of well-informed opinions, and with all the available facts of all political parties and candidates placed before them. That would not be possible if the PAP should spring surprise snap elections of nine days. Candidates and Opposition parties should be given fair and adequate TV air time, and the press should not be completely one-sided. So let the PAP extend the minimum time period from the issue of writ to polling day, and also let the people know at least a month or two in advance of the actual date of elections. And let Opposition parties be given much more air time on TV and more space in the press. Let there be TV debates between candidates, and between Government and Opposition party leaders. With all the facts placed before them, voters become better informed and so will vote more wisely. Let me now come to the question of ballot papers and the manner of voting.”
“Only rich individuals or rich organizations, like the fabulously rich PAP, will have the means to sponsor a Presidential candidate, and canvass and campaign on his behalf. Individuals who do not have the means will not stand a single chance against these sponsored candidates. The PAP has certainly seen to every detail in order to ensure that the next Elected President will be a PAP President. As is well-known, Sir, and as mentioned by the Minister, the Parliamentary Elections Act, which prescribes the most undemocratic and unfair procedure of election of Members of Parliament in Singapore, is one of the most important instruments by which the PAP has kept itself in power these last 32 years. Most of these undemocratic and unfair provisions have been incorporated into the Bill. Clause 7 allows the Prime Minister to give a notice of only "4 clear days" from publication of the writ in the Gazette to the day of nomination. Clause 16 allows an interval of only nine days from nomination day to polling day. It must be remembered that many countries, whether they be parliamentary democracies or military dictatorships, frequently announce election-day many weeks, and even months, in advance. That would allow political parties to prepare and work towards the target date of the election. It is, however, different in Singapore. Here the PAP has always sprung snap elections on the people. It wants to catch the Opposition by surprise. It hopes that the Opposition parties will not be able to make adequate and timely preparations for the elections. While the PAP has full use of TV, radio and the local press all the year round, Opposition parties will not be allowed to campaign until after nomination day.”
“What if the PEC is, wittingly or unwittingly, prejudiced against a person because of his political philosophy or past association with certain political parties? In the circumstances, what redress can a person hope to have against the decision of the PEC except through an appeal or review in a court of law? Is he to be denied a right to a fair and just hearing in a court of law? Today, people all over the world demand that they have the right to vote whomsoever they wish. But the provision that the decision of the PEC should be "final and not be subject to appeal or review in any court" deals a coup de grace to this right of the voter. He is first discriminated against and denied the right to be elected. Now, he is also denied the right to elect whomsoever he wishes. What type of PAP, may I quote the Prime Minister, "Singapore style democracy" is that? Already many people feel hampered and cramped by Government controls and restraints. Now the people are to face yet more and more restrictions of their basic rights. I say to the PAP: Let us put an end to this pretence and humbug of electing a President. Let us call a spade a spade. The whole Bill is designed to allow only persons approved and supported by the PAP to be elected. Why play hide and seek, and have all the hocus-pocus and the sham of going through an election at all? Let me now touch briefly on a few other clauses in the Bill. Clause 50 allows expenses of the Presidential candidate to be $600,000 or 30 cents per elector, whichever is greater. These clauses make for big money politics, since the amount can at any time be amended and increased.”
“Is it by looking at the person and just talking to him? Or by testimonials from other people? Or by hearsay reports? And if he is interviewed by the PEC, will proceedings of the PEC be held in hush-hush secrecy, or will they be open to the public? How the PEC operates is not spelt out in the Bill. According to Article 18(c) of the Constitution, and as explained by the Prime Minister, the PEC, and I quote, "will work out its own rules and work out its own methods of evaluating candidates." [Hansard, Vol. 56, Col. 749, dated 3rd January 1991]. All this is highly unsatisfactory. The PEC is not a private organisation. The working procedure of the PEC should be clearly spelt out and its proceedings should be open to the public. In fact, in keeping with the new style of its professed open-society and open Government, PEC proceedings should be telecast "live", so that they may be seen to be fair and democratic. Such "live" TV Senate hearings are telecast in the US. This is something which we should emulate in Singapore. We must not forget that the assessment of whether or not a person is eligible to contest the election as a Presidential candidate depends on a PEC whose members are all nominees or appointees of the PAP Government. What is more, its decision is "final and shall not be subject to appeal or review in any court." Such being the case, can any person not associated with the PAP Government have confidence that he will be assessed fairly and impartially by the PEC? What if anyone should feel aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment of the PEC? What if, rightly or wrongly, a person should feel that the PEC has made a wrong decision, or a decision against him, out of malice?”
“It is a total and complete violation of the basic right of the voter to elect a person of his choice. In the circumstances, it is no longer a true election. It is a charade. Behind the facade of democracy, with every person being compelled to vote, the whole procedure proposed is designed to legally rig the election of a former Prime Minister, PAP Minister or trusted loyal PAP supporter, to the high and powerful post of President of Singapore. It is no different, Sir, from elections that used to be held in communist countries, where only Communist Party candidates were allowed to offer themselves for election. The anti-communist PAP now adopts a method which has been abandoned by countries that were once Communist. What irony. Let me now deal with some of the provisions in the Bill. Clause 8 of the Bill stipulates that every person who desires to be elected to the office of President has to apply to the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) for a certificate of eligibility. And the PEC must be satisfied that (1) that the person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation, and (2) that he is qualified under Article 19(2)(g)(iv) of the Constitution, and having not less than three years' experience in administering and managing financial affairs. These are conditions that will immediately cut off very large sections of the people, and limit those who are eligible as Presidential candidates to only a very small circle of supermen in the PAP club, representing perhaps less than 0.01% of our Singapore citizens. Excluded are the 99.99% or more of the people, the so-called common herd. Is that fair? Apart from that, the question then arises: how does the PEC decide whether "a person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation"?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first let me say once again that the Workers' Party is totally opposed to the concept of the Elected President. We believe that the Elected President is unnecessary, and that there are enough safeguards in the present parliamentary system, if only the PAP Government would let Parliament play its proper and rightful role in Government. We believe that the real aim of the Elected President proposal is not so much to watch over our financial reserves as to watch over political developments in Singapore, to keep opposition parties in check when the occasion demands, and to help maintain PAP rule over Singapore for as long as possible. Another short observation I would like to make is this. In a democracy, elections should be matters that are discussed with the people, through their representatives or leaders in political parties. This is being done in all democratic countries. In Singapore, however, this has never been the case. Since assuming office in 1959, the PAP has arrogated to itself absolute powers in all matters connected with elections. It has acted as though elections were the concern of only the PAP, the ruling party, as though other political parties did not exist. It has never seen fit, for example, to appoint an Elections Commission which is the norm in almost all civilised countries which practise parliamentary democracy. All this, of course, has made elections under the PAP, contrary to what Dr Koh has said, most unfair and undemocratic. The Bill before the House seeks to prescribe the procedure for the election of the President. The procedure proposed is not only discriminatory and undemocratic, but also a mockery and farce of the whole principle of a free vote.”
“Would it be convenient for the Government to test two theories at the same time?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole complaint about this COE is that it is too highly priced. If -”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids. I think that is a very reasonable request and I understand many people are asking how is it that this has been left out. We should not talk about urgent need. It is not about urgent need at all. It is about whether people will make a high bid or low bid.”
“How come the redevelopment plans have taken nearly 20 years to materialise?”
“Since the original plan of the acquisition has been scrapped, is it fair for the Government to keep the property and rent it out to private individuals for profit?”
“What sort of redevelopment projects are those?”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No. 20(i) says: 'a question shall not be asked as to whether statements in the Press or of private individuals or bodies of persons are accurate;'.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
“Clarification, Sir. The Minister has said something about my asking for an increase of NCMPs, from three to six. True, Sir, I said that, but in the context of the Government's proposal to have NMPs. I suggested that if there was a need to have more Opposition Members, surely it would have been better to have elected or near-elected MPs than Nominated MPs. That was why I asked for an increase from three to six. But I did not ask for more NCMPs per se. Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I understand his predicament and I shall not belabour the point. As to his earlier point about not offering to the next person on the list, for the record, let me remind him that in 1984 when the Workers' Party's representative turned down the NCMP offer, the offer was made to the next person on the list, Mr Tan Chee Kien of the SUF.”
“Would the Minister not be happy to have such a situation? On top of that, he has also mentioned 1988. I cannot say that we have completely turned around. There was the popular demand that there should be more Opposition MPs, whatever the occasion. For me, I feel that we should make use of every available opportunity to voice our party views as well as the viewpoints of the public and give vent to their grievances. Thus more and more people will know what Opposition people think about and say. Hence, the need to have NCMPs if we fail to win in the first-past-the-post election.”
“Let me also say a few words about money politics, Sir. I have said in my speech that the Bill will open the door to abuse, ie, it has not come about yet in actual fact, but who knows. At the present moment, already $4.2 million has been given to the PAP Community Foundation. Is this not one of the ways to influence the voters to vote for the PAP? Is this not part of money politics and using Government money on top of that? That aside, the Minister has said that in 1984 there was scope for only one NCMP after two Opposition MPs were elected. True, I mentioned that myself. Since two were elected, how was it that there was no NCMP to become the third Opposition MP? If there were no three Opposition MPs, then surely the Govern- ment had gone back on its word to have "at least three Opposition MPs," whatever the type of Opposition MPs they might have been. Two were elected and therefore one should have been an NCMP, but it was never offered down the line. Therefore, let me remind the Minister, his memory is failing him. Let me also say that I have not asked for more NCMPs. I have only asked whether the Government will live up to its promise, to what it says. What I have asked for is proportional representation, because that will give equal, fair, representation to the voters in Singapore. The whole world is going towards proportional representation. In Britain itself, the people are asking for proportional representation. In Japan too. And even Prince Charles has put in his word to support proportional representation. If the Government is really keen to have more Opposition MPs, that would be a fair way to go about it. And there will be no need for people to say that the NCMPs are just second class MPs and NMPs are third class MPs.”
“They are to be introduced by the Presidential Elections Bill today. After this, the election of the President may be held when the incumbent President steps down. Or the election of the President may come together with the 1992 or 1993 general elections. Whatever it may be, it will be interesting to know how much a presidential candidate will be allowed to spend in the elections. If there should be a million electors, would the candidate be allowed to spend $1 million in his election campaign? That would be real money politics as we see in the presidential elections of the United States today. And with the Bill, the PAP has now introduced that into Singapore. All because it has lost confidence in being able to gain the people's support in its rule over Singapore. But that will not stop the downward trend of popular support for the PAP, as mentioned by Mr Chiam, and as already evident since the 1981 Anson by-election, and especially seen over the last two elections in 1984 and 1988. Nor will it be able to stop the upward trend of popular support for Opposition parties, with more and more Opposition members being elected to Parliament.”
“Not the PAP. The PAP spends much more. And the Bill will enable the PAP to spend still more in its campaigns to win votes. If the spending of $1 for each elector on the electoral register is allowed, a candidate would be able to spend $18,000 or $20,000 in a constituency of, say, 18,000 or 20,000 electors. Will spending such a large sum not open the door to abuse of treating and other forms of electoral bribery and corruption? With the new amendments, political parties like the PAP which can afford to spend freely, could easily change clean healthy election practices into pure money politics. That is to be deplored. And Government should not initiate such electoral provisions simply because it has advantages over Opposition parties and can benefit from such dirty money politics. Hitherto, the present maximum amount of $6,000 allowed per candidate has worked quite well. Mr Chiam has told us of his experience. Similarly, I can say that in the Barisan Sosialis in the old days, and in the Workers' Party today, we do not spend even half the amount that is legally allowed. Sir, no one from political parties, so far as we know, other than from the PAP itself, has complained that the amount for an election campaign is insufficient. The maximum amount for electoral campaign should therefore be maintained for the time being or, at most, be increased only slightly. The third item in the Bill is to prepare legislation for the election of the President. Though the amendments appear to be procedural and consequential, as the Minister has said, nevertheless, to the PAP, the amendments are of the utmost importance. Without these amendments to sections 55, 61 and 79 of the Act, it will not be able to proceed with the election of the President.”
“In view of the Prime Minister's call for an open, democratic and consultative government, is the Governmentwilling to appoint a special committee to look into the desirability or otherwise of proportional representation in Singapore? Dare the PAP take up the challenge to find out the views of the people of Singapore? On the question of raising the maximum amount a candidate may spend in the conduct of an election, it would seem that the Government is opening the door for Singapore parties to plunge into the realm of money politics. The PAP is of course fabulously rich, and it hopes to benefit from such money politics in Singapore. But we must ask: Is it a wise thing to do? Hitherto, a candidate gets elected because (i) the policies of his or her party, supported by its organisation and propaganda apparatus, gain popular support; and (ii) the candidate is seen as the most capable and most able to represent and ventilate the views of electors in Parliament. And since 1963, and especially over recent years, the PAP, with its control over the mass organisations and its monopoly of the mass media, has overwhelming advantages over Opposition parties. Nevertheless, with the rising political consciousness of the people, it has lost ground. Votes for the PAP have declined, and votes for the Opposition have increased. In fact, Opposition votes accounted for nearly 40% of total popular votes in the 1988 election. Come 1992 or 1993, who knows how many more votes the PAP will lose to the Opposition and how many the Opposition will gain? With inflation and increasing cost of printing, costs of conducting an election campaign will certainly go up a little. But Opposition parties with all their disadvantages have managed somehow to keep their election spending to a very small sum.”
“When the attack against the lone MP brought in its trail adverse publicity for the PAP, and it was severely criticised for its intolerance to fair and legitimate criticism, the PAP came outwith the answer of the NCMP. It was clearly an attempt to assuage and appease popular discontent, and an attempt to show that the PAP was not intolerant to opposition and criticism; that it would indeed like to have an Opposition in Parliament; and that it was even willing and ready to initiate the NCMP system to give the Opposition an opportunity to have its own representatives to ventilate its viewpoints in Parliament. But there are also criticisms against the NCMP system. Some people have called the NCMP a second-class MP, and I do not blame them for saying so. Such being the case, Sir, my suggestion is that, if the PAP feels that there should be more Opposition Members to voice non-Government viewpoints, then the correct and proper thing to do is, as I have stated on another occasion, to institute the system of proportional representation in Singapore. As is well-known, Sir, the present electoral system of first-past-the-post winner is a most undemocratic and unfair electoral system. It brings about unfair and unequal representation of the true wishes of the voters. Elections in Singapore and the unequal representation in the Singapore Parliament are concrete examples of such unfair and undemocratic elections par excellence. Is the PAP willing to forgo the present unfair electoral system for one which the people of Singapore may have fair representation in Parliament?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister has said, the Bill serves to provide - (i) for more NCMPs if the PAP so wishes; (ii) for increased spending by candidates in the elections; and (iii) for legislation for the election of a President in Singapore. First, on the increase in the number of NCMPs. In 1984, amending the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Senior Minister, then Prime Minister, had assured the House that there would be at least three Opposition Members of Parliament, and that the number of NCMPs could be increased to six. Though only two Opposition MPs were elected in 1984, the Government nevertheless did not increase the number of Opposition Members to "at least three", as the then Prime Minister had categorically assured the House. This really came as no surprise, as the PAP could rarely be depended on to keep its word on important issues. This time, the Bill is to enable the President to vary the number of NCMPs from four, as explained by the Minister, to at most six. Excepting for the possibility of the President being able to vary the number of NCMPs, there is practically no difference between the position following the present amendment and the original position before the amendment. Of course, as Mr Chiam has emphasised, there may be no further occasion for NCMPs in future. If there should be occasion for NCMPs again in the next elections, we shall then have to see how the PAP lives up to its word this time. However, the question again arises. Why does the PAP institute the system of NCMPs, and incidentally also NMPs? NCMPs were introduced following Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam's victory in the Anson by-election in 1981 and the subsequent feverish attack unleashed by the PAP against the then lone Opposition MP.”
“Sir, will the Minister ask the MAS in its review to inform the public how much debt is incurred by the people in Singapore or the credit that is being given to them, every year, or maybe twice a year?”
“Yes, that is the question. I ask why the Minister has taken on himself the role of a judge in pronouncing that there was no case for the prosecution of insider trading. Another question, Sir, that follows is: in view of the heat and controversy of the whole issue, would the Minister be prepared to have a special committee to look into the matter so that the whole question can be thrashed out and everybody knows exactly what is happening? Otherwise, many people will still be in the dark, especially the shareholders, as well as other people who are interested in the issue of insider trading.”