S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 34 of 66.
“Sir, it is not a question of the press giving him publicity. The question is, has there been an election irregularity and a violation of the Parliamentary Elections Act? That is the question. Is Dr Lee Siew-Choh alleging that there has been a breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act? If that is so, even if no newspaper gave him publicity, he has the legal redress before a court of law. So the question is: is he alleging that there has been a breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act? If he is not, then he should say so categorically. Is he alleging that the Parliamentary Elections Act has been violated?”
“He has said in his main speech that the Secretary-General of his Party is contemplating a boycott of the elections. He was not clear whether it is the Presidential elections or the general elections. But since most of his speech today has been an attack on the Parliamentary Elections Act, perhaps we should take it that the boycott that has been planned for is both for the general elections and the Presidential elections.”
“Sir, it is a bit tedious. I pointed out that if we do not have this provision we cannot decisively deal with the allegation where a voter says that the ballot paper that he put in was taken out and substituted with another ballot paper. The other steps that he mentioned will not enable that allegation to be successfully dealt with by a court of law. He says that it is an empirical fact that there is fear. Well, he says he does not fear, others have come to him with a fear. If that is so, why does he not take the opportunity now to reassure the voters? I am sure SBC will telecast his assurance, just like his Secretary-General sometime ago in one election also went around assuring the people that the vote is secret. If there is a fear, how is it that some 36% of the electorate voted against the PAP? How is it that Mr Jeyaretnam had been elected? Then he says, apropos the counting of votes, that he had arrived at the counting station and the ballot boxes had been opened up, as if a major breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act had taken place. If he is alleging that a violation of the election rules had taken place, that is a very serious allegation and he should have made it then and there, or shortly thereafter, and brought in an election petition. But I am sure his election agent must have been present. Because if the election agent was not present, he was not present, and the boxes had been opened up, I am sure he would have made a big protest about it because that would have been a violation of the rules. So, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, much as I am tempted to prolong this reply, the point is that these procedures in the Parliamentary Elections Act have been there and they contain enough safeguards.”
“But the total number of voters who have voted at any polling station at any time before the poll is closed may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be divulged to the candidates, in other words, the number of people who have voted. What Dr Lee Siew-Choh wants is, instead of the discretion being vested in the presiding officer, he wants it to be mandatory so that each time the candidate or the agent approaches the presiding officer, the presiding officer must give the information. This cannot be workable because you must allow the presiding officer, who may have very busy periods at various times of the polling day, to decide when he can accede to his request. If we take the amendment by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, it means that it is mandatory. Every time the candidate, or his agent, approaches the presiding officer at intervals of, say, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, or 20 minutes, he has to stop work and attend to his request. This is not reasonable. In any case, let us not forget that the candidate will have his polling agents at the polling station. And we know that, in practice, what happens is that each candidate has his polling agents to keep track because when a number of the elector is called up, he will delete it from his copy of the electoral register. What actually happens in practice is that the candidate will check with his polling agents, or the election agent will check with his polling agents, to know how many voters have voted. To make it mandatory, I think, is to place an intolerable burden on those who are charged with carrying out the business of conducting the elections.”
“There is nothing in the Bill to prohibit a candidate or an agent from accompanying the ballot boxes in another vehicle, but he wants him to be in the same vehicle. This is an absurd proposition. Supposing the polling station is for a GRC of four candidates and there are four political parties campaigning there. In other words, 16 polling agents must be crammed into the bus with the election officers and the Police escort and if the election polling agents are highly strung up, you can expect the kind of tension and maybe fisticuffs because some candidates and some election helpers (not those of the PAP) have been known to be rowdy and ill-behaved. The point is that the existing law already provides a safeguard. Clause 31(2) says: 'The ballot box or boxes unopened shall be secured by the presiding officer and sealed with his seal and with the seals of such of the candidates or their agents as attend and desire to affix their seals, in such manner that the box or boxes cannot be opened and nothing can be inserted therein without breaking the seals.' Therefore, there is a safeguard. The candidates and their agents know the number of ballot boxes issued from the polling station and they can check whether the boxes which arrive at the counting centre are sealed, or whether the seals are intact. Then he wants an amendment to clause 36. At the moment, clause 36 says that every officer, etc, at a polling station shall maintain secrecy, shall not communicate, before the poll is closed, to any person any information as to the name or number of electors and so on.”
“He wants to take care of a future situation, a future government. But, as I have said, if we do not have this provision, and somebody alleges that his vote has been taken out and replaced by another vote, you cannot decisively have the court rule on this matter. In fact, if we do not have this provision, you can have more such allegations and greater fears. Then I pointed out that the United Kingdom has exactly the same provisions and the reference to this is the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I quote: 'Ballot paper shall be delivered to a voter who applies for one and immediately before delivery, the ballot paper shall be stamped with official mark, the number and name of the elector shall be called out, the number of the elector shall be marked on the counterfoil, ...' So this is a very good precedent. And as I have said, the Secretary-General of his Party has gone on record to say that he accepts the assurance that the Government could not break the law and the only circumstances which the ballot box would be opened would be pursuant to an order of the Court. This is in the Straits Times of 15th November 1978. So much for the ballot papers. Ballot boxes. He wants an amendment to clause 31. And what he wants is that the ballot boxes shall be numbered and the number of ballot boxes allocated to each polling station is to be announced beforehand. Those in charge of transporting the boxes shall be given in advance the number of ballot boxes and so on. One polling agent of the candidate from each polling station may accompany the ballot boxes to the counting centre. I do not know what he means by "accompanying the ballot boxes to the counting centre". I take it that he means "accompanying in the same vehicle".”
“Sir, let me deal with the second group of amendments. Again, I do not propose to repeat at length what I have said in my main reply. First, his amendments to clauses 23 and 25 relate to his objections to the numbering. He said that his Party has not raised this over the last several elections. But the Opposition now has to raise it because they fear this. By "Opposition" what does he mean? He cannot speak for the entire Opposition because Mr Chiam has, on record in 1979, as saying [Straits Times, 3rd February 1979]: 'The number on the ballot paper and the secrecy of the votes was not an issue for contention. This issue has been settled. The purpose of the serial number was to prevent cheating and other malpractices during balloting.' So Dr Lee Siew-Choh can only speak for the Workers' Party. And he said that the Government has created this fear. The Government has not created this fear. It is he who is creating this fear by raising it after a moratorium imposed by them for whatever reasons, and raising it now for totally unjustified reasons. I have explained that this is a provision which the Government did not introduce. It was introduced by the British. There is very good reason for this because, with this provision, anyone who alleges that his vote has been tampered with, this matter can be decided not by the Government, by opening of the ballot boxes, but by a court of law. And the ballot papers, after the counting, are sealed in the ballot boxes. Ballot boxes are sealed and then stored in the Supreme Court vault and can be opened only on permission of the Supreme Court in an election petition. He has said in this House that he is not saying that the PAP Government has ever done such a thing as opening up the boxes.”
“So anyone who is interested in the elections can work out when the elections will be during the period of the three months. As for the PEC certificate, I have explained that this period has worked well with respect to the certificate issued for the GRC candidates, which is a more difficult task than in the case of qualifications under Article 19. I have explained that the Constitution, for good reasons, excludes judicial review of the matters to which the PEC certifies, because those matters are, strictly speaking, not legal matters and are not justiciable. As to the amendment to clause 9(6), whether "may" gives the discretion to refuse, I am advised by the Attorney-General's Chambers that "may" here, by interpretation, is that it has an obligation. So "may" here must be read to mean "shall". So there is no need to amend it in taking the normal legal usage of these terms. I believe we have gone only as far as clause 16.”
“Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh in his main speech had in fact already in a way spoken or argued on points which are reflected in his notice of amendments and to which I have in fact also replied. So instead of giving a detailed reply, may I summarise what I had already said, this time in respect of each of the amendments. His amendments to clauses 7 and 8 are related also to his amendments to clause 16(5) in so far as the period of four days is concerned, in clause 7, the period of 2 clear days in clause 8, and the period of a minimum of nine days and not more than eight weeks in clause 16(5) relate to his criticisms as to the shortness of the period of notice or, as the case may be, of the period of minimum campaign period. To recapitulate, I pointed out that these provisions are identical to the Parliamentary elections where for many more candidates in many more constituencies, it has worked satisfactorily. Secondly, here the candidate is appealing to an entire electorate, there are likely to be fewer candidates and the nature of the campaigning is likely to be different. Again, I pointed out that it is far more predictable than Parliamentary elections as to when the period of election is going to be. For example, if the constitutional amendments are brought into force during the term of office of the present President, Mr Wee Kim Wee, he would exercise the functions as spelt out in the constitutional provisions. And the Constitution provides that his term of office will expire on a particular date. We know that it expires on 31st August 1993. If it expires in the normal course of events, if he does not resign, then the election must be held three months prior to that.”
“It can be put to the Elections Department and, if it is feasible, we will adopt it. But its adoption may not require an amendment to the legislation because the ballot paper is to be in a form that is prescribed and, if it is workable, we can so prescribe. But it is a good suggestion. Dr Koh Lam Son raised the question of seals. He felt that the seals which are used now are rather fragile and he asked whether we could adopt the wax seal. This is a question which can be put to the Elections Department. I do not have the answer to it. If it is indeed a problem, then the Elections Department can consider how it can be overcome. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -”
“Therefore, I think it is right that if he dies, we should see whether any other candidate is desirous of standing for election, so that that particular viewpoint would not be denied to the electorate. Mr Chay Wai Chuen asked whether we should have a time period for a candidate to declare that he has renounced his links with a political party. The Constitution provides that on the day of the nomination, he must make a declara- tion saying that he is not a member of a political party. I think we should keep that as a legal requirement. It may be that some, as aspirants for the election, may consider it consistent with their philosophy to resign from the political party long before the election period. Some may hold the view that they do not see any inconsistencies, as some Members in this House have expressed that view, and therefore they may want to comply with the requirement only on the day of the nomination. I think we should leave it to them. The important point is that, as the Select Committee recommended, it must be manifestly seen to be so that candidates on nomination day must sever their former party links in the form of resigning their membership from a political party. Mr Chay has raised quite an interesting point about the symbols and whether a photograph can be placed on the ballot paper. Some candidates may consider the photograph to be an advantage, some may not. But I can see his point. In the Parliamentary elections, it will be very difficult to do because there are so many candidates. But in a Presidential election, where there are likely to be a few candidates and just one constituency of the entire nation, and bearing in mind they cannot use their established party symbols, I think I will give his point careful consideration.”
“It is best to take the approach that instead of having all these complicated provisions, it is far better that we take the Presidential election as a serious election so that whoever is interested (and there should be people who are interested) should come out, indicate their intention to stand, declare their candidature and contest so that there will be a poll. Then Dr Lee Siew-Choh and I think also Dr Koh Lam Son, touched on the question of election expenses. As I have said in my main speech, we have to bear in mind that the candidate has not only to declare his own personal expenditure but also the expenditure of all those who may be campaigning on his behalf and this includes a political party, if any, because they cannot campaign without authority from the candidate. Mr Chiam expressed the view about a situation where there is a death of a candidate and there are two or more candidates. His view, as I understand it, is that if there are two or more candidates and one candidate dies, we should not follow the approach in the Parliamentary Elections Act of the poll being countermanded and fresh nominations be invited, except for those who have already been nominated, without having to re-nominate. His view was that if there is a death of a candidate, the remaining candidates should go straightaway to the poll. As I understood his argument, it was that it is unlike the situation under the Parliamentary Elections Act where a political party has fielded a candidate. Here they are standing in their individual capacity. Do not forget, however, that a candidate who dies might have stood for a particular viewpoint on how an Elected President should carry out his functions. He might have had a particular platform or position on how reserves should be managed.”
“Perhaps I will take that up when he moves the amendments to the various clauses during the Committee stage. Mr Chiam raised certain points which had not been raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I believe he felt that there must be a minimum percentage of votes for a Presidential candidate before he is declared elected. His argument was that this would reflect the mandate. And I think he also touched on the question of a single candidate. The point is whether we should depart from the first-past-the-post system. And a related point on this was made by, I think, Mr Chay Wai Chuen as to whether a minimum number of votes is required. First, on the question of a single candidate. If on an issue so important as the Presidential elections where people are put on notice that an election is going to take place during this period, during a six-month period or a three-month period of a particular year, no other candidate, except one, stands, the question is, what is the point of having a poll? What is the point of requiring a minimum electoral endorsement? And what would that be - 40%, 30%? Mr Chiam says 50%. Supposing in the case of a sole candidate, he does not get that 50%, or whatever percentage we fix today. Then what happens? We go through the whole process again? Then in the second round or repeat elections, he does not get the 50% again, what happens? Or to take Mr Chay's point, there is more than one candidate. If in the first round, candidate A gets, as he said, 45%, another candidate gets 45%, or 46%, or 44%, and 10% spoilt votes, you have another election. You have a different permutation - one candidate gets 43%, another person gets 47% - it may not reach the 50% mark. How often do you proceed? With the second round or third round?”
“Then both Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam complained about the number of days, nine days, being too short. I would like to repeat my point about the period of Presidential elections being fairly ascertainable well in advance. Secondly, consider the fact that for all these years, nine days have been shown to be enough for numerous candidates contesting some 79, and later 80, 81, seats in parliamentary elections. For Presidential elections, not only the candidates are likely to be well known, but they are likely not to be too many of them, probably a handful. That is my guess. Thirdly, campaigning is likely to be different from parliamentary elections. You are campaigning to the whole electorate, the entire of Singapore. Whether there will be door to door campaigning, I do not know. I think it is more likely to be appeal through the press, the media, maybe taking advertisements in the papers, and this is something that candidates do not do in a parliamentary election because you are addressing only your constituents. But if your entire electorate is your target, you might want to take advertisement space in the newspapers to publicise your campaign stand. Because of the nature of the elections in the Presidential elections, which is likely to be different, because there are likely to be not as many candidates as in parliamentary elections, and because you are very likely to be able to tell when the elections are to be held, you should in fact be prepared long before. The campaigning of the candidate and the preparation for the candidate must start long before the writ is actually announced. Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised some other points about ballot boxes being numbered and so on.”
“EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BILL Debate resumed.”
“After the counting, all the ballot papers, which are mixed by now, together with the counterfoils are sealed in ballot boxes and stored in the Supreme Court vault, and they cannot be opened except with the permission of a court which will give such permission only for the purpose of an election petition. He knows that this is not a provision which was introduced in our law by this Government. It was introduced by the British, and we are not alone. The United Kingdom has exactly the same provisions in their law as of today's date. So too have Malaysia and other countries. Sir, in the ultimate analysis, what is at issue is not the provisions. You can introduce any number of provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. But what is really important is to make sure that you have an honest government and people of integrity in the civil service who work the system. It is because we have run the system honestly, and although from time to time Dr Lee Siew-Choh and others have raised this issue of numbered ballots, no one, not even the Opposition party, has alleged that the Government has been dishonest in running the election. Nor has any Opposition party accused the Government of rigging the election. If you reflect on it, because they know that if a serious allegation is made, under these provisions, the court can decisively determine the question whether or not there has been such fraud. I dare say that if we bow down to Dr Lee Siew-Choh's request and we do away with this provision which other countries like UK have, that will open the door for reckless allegations to be made because we cannot disprove these allegations. Mr Speaker: Order. BG Lee.”
“When Mr Jeyaretnam was cross-examined in a defamation case in November 1978, he said on oath, when the question was put to him whether he accepted the assurance from the then Prime Minister that the Government could not break the law, and the only circumstance where the ballot box would be opened will be pursuant to an order of the court, "I accept that assurance." Dr Lee Siew-Choh is resurrecting an old issue. He wants to do away with the numbering of ballot papers. The question is, how would he then disprove allegation of malpractice in votes? How would he disprove an allegation, if an allegation is made, by some voters that after they had voted, their ballots had been taken out and switched with other ballot papers with votes for different candidates? This system that we have in the Parliamentary Elections Act, and which is reflected in the Presidential Elections Bill, is the best way of ensuring that any such allegation can be scrutinised and decisively decided if the matter is raised in a court of law. The number at the back of the ballot paper, as has been explained many times, is to guarantee that the ballot paper is genuine. The serial number of the voter being entered on the counterfoil is to establish and record that the ballot paper is a genuine one given to the voter. He says there is a great deal of fear. But he forgets to point out the safeguards which exist concerning the secrecy of voting. At the counting centres, all the ballot papers are mixed. He knows that.”
“Because the matters which Article 19 of the Constitution talks about, whether a person has held "similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organisation or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector which, in the opinion of the Presidential Elections Committee, has given him such experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to enable him to carry out effectively the functions and duties of the office of President", these are matters which the Constitution has entrusted to the judgment of a group of wise men, the Presidential Elections Committee. These are matters which are not strictly legal or justiciable matters by a court of law. Then he wants the American system of grilling candidates in the public, and whatever dirty linen to be brought up. I am not sure whether it is wise to import into our system these American-style committees grilling individuals in public. Candidates, as I have said, are likely, because of the stringent qualifications, to be established figures on the Singapore scene. If there is such public grilling, would there be candidates coming forth? Even for the Nominated MP, I recall from the Special Select Committee, that one candidate pleaded in the Special Select Committee that his name should not be disclosed, unless the Special Select Committee nominated him. Next, Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised the question of numbered ballots. It is interesting that he pointed out the Workers' Party has not raised this for several years, and there is good reason.”
“Let me point out that these periods which are stated in clauses 7 and 8 are based exactly on the same periods as that for the Parliamentary Elections Act with regard to the certificates which are necessary for the Indian or Malay or other minority candidates standing in a GRC. In fact, for that certificate, one can say that even more work is involved because the Committees concerned have to certify that the particular candidate, Malay or Indian, is accepted as a member of the respective community. Also, I would like to point out that, if you look at Article 19, the very nature of the qualifications required by the Constitution is such that the candidates for Presidential elections are very likely to be well-known people or figures, and whether you agree with their policies or the stand which they represent. In fact, the scheme of the Constitution is that they must be well-known people on the Singapore scene, because of the stringent qualifications. And therefore these two periods referred to should not pose great problems. Then Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised questions concerning judicial review of the certificate issued by the PEC. But, first, this has been gone into during the debates on the Elected President and the Constitution already provides in Article 18 that there can be no judicial review of the certificate, and there are good reasons for this.”
“In the case of a vacancy arising in unusual circumstances, such as death or resignation, the Constitution provides that the poll for the Elected President must be held within six months. So in that unusual situation, everybody is put on notice that although it had not been anticipated that there was going to be an election year for the Elected President, because this unusual event has occurred, everyone is put on notice at least that much ahead that there is going to be a poll. In other words, far from the short four days or the short period which they complained about, ample notice is given and everyone is put on notice that there is going to be an election during that period. In fact, it is far more predictable than parliamentary elections. So whoever could be interested, or is interested, or may be interested, should start their preparations ahead of time. I do not know whether Mr Chiam's or Dr Lee Siew-Choh's complaint is based on the fact that they normally wait till the last minute. But I would advise that anyone who is interested or thinks he has a potential to be an Elected Presidential candidate should peruse the provisions of this Bill and he can tell that in two years time, from this period to that period, there will be an election. As far as the period for obtaining the certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee is concerned, the two days referred to, at least two clear days before nomination day, that is the absolute latest that a candidate can apply for the certificate. But of course it does not mean that the candidate should wait till the very last minute because he can, and I think he should, apply for the certificate the day when the writ is issued. So he does not have to wait till the last minute.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I touch on the points which have been raised by the Members who have spoken during the Second Reading? First, can I take up some of the points by Dr Lee Siew-Choh? His first point, which is also shared by Mr Chiam, concerns what he considers to be a very short period between the notice of the issue of the writ and the date of the nomination, and also what he considers to be a very short period for obtaining a certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee. Dr Lee Siew-Choh suggests raising it to 30 days. I think Mr Chiam suggested amending clause 7 to increase the period to 14 days. The arguments were that the period stated in the notice is very short. There are a lot of things that a candidate will have to do, run around getting six or whatever number of supporters in addition to the proposer and seconder. But their fears are unfounded because we must bear in mind that in the Presidential elections, anyone who is likely to be interested would have a far clearer idea of when the election is going to take place than in the case of parliamentary elections. In the case of an incumbent President whose term expires in the normal way, shall we say we know the incumbent President's term is going to expire on 31st December of a particular year, because of these provisions, you know that the election must be held during a period of three months before the expiry of the term. Therefore, you know that during that year, three months before 31st December, elections are likely to be held. And if anyone is serious about it, he should start making preparations long before, not just when the writ is announced and scurry around trying to get six persons to support you.”
“Invalidity of Elections As regards invalidity of elections, the Bill also sets out in clause 71 the grounds upon which the election of a candidate as President may be declared void. If an election is not declared void, the removal will be possible only by Parliament on the grounds and according to the procedures which are set out in the Constitution. Election Petitions As far as election petitions are concerned, the grounds on which the election of a candidate as President may be declared void have been set out in clause 71. There are also provisions on election petitions. The court procedure for the bringing of such petitions are to be set out in rules made by the Rules Committee under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Corrupt or Illegal Practices As regards corrupt or illegal practices, the Bill contains provisions similar to those in the Parliamentary Elections Act concerning illegal or corrupt practices in connection with the elections. Consequential amendments I might draw attention, Sir, to certain consequential amendments. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act, chief of which is an amendment to provide for the striking off from the register of electors any elector who has failed to vote in a Presidential election. The other is a minor amendment providing that any person who has been convicted of any corrupt practice in connection with any Presidential election will be disqualified from acting as an election agent in a general or by-election for seven years. Commencement As far as the commencement of this Bill is concerned, it will be brought into operation only after the constitutional amendments establishing the Elected President are brought into force. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Nomination proceedings are also similar with the exception that the candidate must furnish a statutory declaration stating that he is not a member of any political party as well as the required certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee. Objections may be made to the nomination papers in the same way as objections to nominations in a general election or by-election. Polling Day As for polling day, it will be not less than nine days and not more than eight weeks after the date of the notice of contested elections. This is provided for in clause 16. It must also fall within the periods which I mentioned just now - six months or three months as the case may be - on the timing of the Presidential elections. The manner of voting is no different from that as provided for in the Parliamentary Elections Act. The results of the poll must be published in the Gazette. Death of a President-designate In situations where there is a death of a President-elect or President-designate, clause 34 provides that where a candidate has been declared elected but so happens that he dies before the commencement of his term of office, a new writ will be issued. This is especially necessary since a poll may be held two months before the successful candidate actually assumes office. Death of a candidate Now what happens in the case of death of a candidate before the elections? If a candidate dies before polling day, the poll will be countermanded and all proceedings will begin afresh except that no nomination need to be made again in respect of the remaining candidates who stood nominated at the time the poll was countermanded. This follows the Parliamentary Elections model.”
“No new register of electors I should add that as far as registers of electors are concerned, the current registers of electors maintained under the Parliamentary Elections Act shall be the basis for determining whether a person is entitled to vote at Presidential elections. This avoids maintaining separate registers of electors. The electoral boundaries marked out and the polling districts created under the Parliamentary Elections Act will also be used for the purpose of Presidential elections. This also will reduce the administrative costs of conducting any Presidential elections. Timing of Elections As for the timing of elections, like general elections to Parliament, Presidential elections must also be held within a stipulated time period. If the office of President falls vacant prior to the expiration of the term of office of the incumbent, and this could be due to death, resignation, removal and so on, then the poll must be held within six months of such vacation. This is something that is already provided for under Article 22L of the Constitution. If there is no premature vacation of office, and the incumbent's term of office expires in the normal way, then the poll must be held not more than three months before the end of the term of office of the incumbent President. Those are the major provisions which are different from the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Nomination If I may briefly go over the other provisions. As regards nomination, the writ of election will specify the nomination day which shall be not less than five days and not more than one month from the date of the writ. This is similar to the Parliamentary Elections Act.”
“Clause 50 of the Bill prescribes such a cap on the amount of election expenses. The maximum amount prescribed is 30 cents per elector on all registers or $600,000, whichever is the greater. To enable flexibility, this amount could subsequently be amended by order in the Gazette. This cap of $600,000 or 30 cents per voter is reasonable when we take into account two factors. First, the Presidential candidate will have to reach out to all the electors throughout Singapore, not just one constituency, in other words, about 1.6 million or more voters. Secondly, if any political parties campaign on behalf of the candidate (which is permitted) their expenses would have to be declared as part of the candidate's expenses. Other provisions on offences, filing of returns, etc. are similar to the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Deposits on Nomination Next, I turn to the question of deposits on nomination. Just as there is a requirement for candidates for Parliamentary elections, so also every candidate for Presidential elections must also furnish deposits. To denote the serious nature of Presidential elections, the amount of deposit for a candidate for elections to the Presidency ought to be greater than that for Parliamentary elections. Accordingly, clause 10 provides that the deposit shall be three times the amount payable by a candidate in Parliamentary elections. Following the Parliamentary elections provisions, such deposit will be forfeited where the candidate fails to garner 1/8 of the total votes polled.”
“The Committee's function is to certify that the Committee is satisfied that the prospective candidate is a person of integrity, good character and reputation; and, secondly, to certify that the Committee is of the opinion that the prospective candidate does have the ability and the experience in managing financial affairs as are necessary for the office of the President. (This will of course apply only to candidates who are not automatically qualified under the Constitution.) Such a certificate will be valid only for the purpose of the particular election in question. Political Affiliation of Candidates Next, let me turn to clause 9. Consistent with the constitutional amendments, the Bill provides that a candidate must at the time of nomination declare that he is not a member of any political party. The candidate will therefore not be allotted any symbol which denotes or implies any affiliation with a political party. The candidate will also not be able to wear on his person any badge indicating his affiliation with any political party. Election Expenses Let me turn to the question of election expenses. Members of the House will recall that during the Parliamentary debates on these constitutional amendments early this year the Prime Minister agreed that there should be a cap on the election expenses relating to the election of the Elected President. As a Presidential candidate will be campaigning for the votes of all Singaporeans who are eligible to vote, and not as in Parliamentary elections where only those voters within a particular constituency, the Prime Minister suggested that the cap should be less than that prescribed for Parliamentary elections which, prior to the amendment recently, was 50 cents per elector on a register or $6,000, whichever is greater.”
“This Bill is therefore consequent to the new Article 17(2) of the Constitution, which reads: "The President shall be elected by the citizens of Singapore in accordance with any law made by the Legislature." The Bill, before the House today, is necessary in order to set out in detail the manner in which the Presidential elections are to be held. The provisions provide for the process of elections from nomination to balloting and to counting of votes. With a few exceptions, most of the provisions are based on the Parliamentary Elections Act. I would say more than 90% of the provisions are adapted from the Parliamentary Elections Act. That being the case, it is not my intention to deal with each and every clause of the Bill. Instead, I shall highlight the major features of the Bill, especially where the Bill differs from the principles or provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Compulsory Voting Let me say, at the outset, as in the case of Parliamentary elections, voting in a Presidential election will be compulsory. An elector who fails to vote at a Presidential election will have his name expunged from the register of electors unless he has good reasons for not voting or if he pays the required fee of $5 to have his name re-instated. Voting Rights Also, every person who at the time of any Presidential elections is on a register of electors has a right to vote at these elections. Role of the Presidential Elections Committee. Let me now turn to the provisions which may be different from the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. First, I draw your attention to the role of the Presidential Elections Committee and the role, as set out in the Bill, is consistent with Articles 18 and 19 as introduced by the constitutional amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, earlier this year, this House enacted the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act which constitutional amendments provided for an Elected President with certain veto powers in three broad areas: first, appointment of key public service appointments; second, protection of accumulated reserves of the Government, key statutory boards and Government companies; third, in matters concerning detentions under the Internal Security Act, CPIB investigations and orders made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Prior to the enactment of this legislation, we had considerable debate. Members will remember that in July 1988 the first White Paper was published, setting out the principles of the concept of the Elected President. In August 1990, the second White Paper was published, setting out the main features of the proposed legislation. There was a full debate of the first White Paper. In October 1990, there was an extensive Second Reading debate, after which the Bill was sent to a Select Committee which made certain significant changes. After the Select Committee reported on the Bill, there was a Third Reading in January this year. In view of all these extensive debates, it is not my intention to repeat the rationale for the constitutional amendments or to go over the issues again which have been canvassed in this House. What this Bill is about The constitutional amendments state that the provisions relating to the actual conduct of the elections for the President are to be set out in a law made by this House.”
“BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) was satisfied on the face of the complaint lodged by the solicitor for Christiania Bank, that the matter warranted a full scale investigation against Khamis for a possible offence under section 404(3) of the Companies Act, ie. obtaining credit by deceitful means. The CAD has to act swiftly by arresting Khamis and put him on high bail pending investigation to ensure that he would not leave Singapore. On 8th March 1991, the CAD called up Khamis for questioning. Khamis was accompanied by his two lawyers. The same evening, after CAD officers had recorded a statement from Khamis, they arrested him and released him on bail of $30 million. Bail of $30 million was considered necessary because the credit facilities obtained by Khamis amounted to almost $100 million. Khamis' solicitors agreed to post bail at $30 million and raised no objection to any of its terms and conditions. CAD carried out a thorough investigation of the allegations over a period of several months. The investigations were conducted both in Singapore and Norway and covered Khamis' dealings with three banks in Singapore. After evaluating the evidence obtained, CAD concluded that it was insufficient to support charges of fraud against Khamis within the Singapore jurisdiction. Whatever the acts of fraud alleged against Khamis in regard to the issue of letters of credit to the Singapore banks, these charges can only be established in Norway and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a different question which requires elaboration of the redevelopment plans. But the thrust of Dr Lee Siew-Choh's question is whether the land can be returned to the original owners. If we give it back to the original owners, then they will be subject to double acquisition because the land will have to be acquired again. $2 CURRENCY NOTE (Change of colour) 11. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Minister for Finance whether he will consider withdrawing or changing the $2 currency note as its similarity to the $10 note causes confusion. The Acting Minister for Finance (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the $2 note was first issued in January 1991, there were some reports of members of the public mistaking it for a $10 note (I have made that mistake more than once myself). Some MPs have also commented on this problem. In view of the feedback, the Minister for Finance directed the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Singapore to examine the matter together with the Currency Note Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee has recommended that the colour of the note be changed from red to purple when the note is reprinted next month. The new supplies should be ready for issue during the next Lunar New Year festive period. However, there are still some stocks of the old note left and these will be issued first. The public is getting used to the note and there have been fewer complaints in recent months. MR ELYAMANI KHAMIS (Withdrawal of charge) 12. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Finance if he will give the reasons for not proceeding to charge Mr Elyamani Khamis after having arrested him and released him on a bail of $30 million.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the original plan might have been revised. But I have just said that the site is still affected by other redevelopment plans. As far as the tenants are concerned, they were paid compensation which at that time was equivalent to prevailing market rates. These awards ranged from $30,000 to $50,000 each, which at that time were enough for them to purchase alternative accommodation. In fact, only two of the many tenants appealed and the rest accepted the compensation.”
“Sir, the Ministry of National Development informed me of a comprehensive re-planning of the northern/eastern sector. Because of that, Tampines Woods Estate and the adjoining area to the north are earmarked for industrial development.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. This acquisition was done more than 20 years ago. All the owners affected have been awarded compensation. Although the property in question may not be required for the expansion of Paya Lebar Airport, the area is still affected by other redevelopment projects.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by the Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed between Pulau Seraya and Pulau Ayer Merbau and between Pulau Ayer Merbau and Pulau Sakra containing a total area of approximately 11.14 hectares as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/91" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by the Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed between Pulau Seraya and Pulau Ayer Merbau and between Pulau Ayer Merbau and Pulau Sakra containing a total area of approximately 11.14 hectares as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 1/91" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) will reclaim about 11.14 hectares of the foreshore and seabed between Pulau Seraya and Pulau Ayer Merbau and between Pulau Merbau and Pulau Sakra as indicated in yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/91", a copy of which has been displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. This reclamation will provide land to construct causeway links for carrying utility services such as water, electricity and telecommunications from the mainland to Pulau Sakra via Pulau Seraya and Pulau Merbau. Pulau Sakra has been subleased by JTC to Du Pont Singapore Pte Ltd which is constructing a chemical plant on the island. JTC is required to provide the necessary infrastructure services to the island before the chemical plant is operational in early 1993. Sir, JTC, which is the Government's agent for the reclamation, will meet the cost of the reclamation estimated at $30 million. The reclamation is expected to be completed in June 1992. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“The Committee has also recommended that appropriate amendments be made to section 10(3)(b) of the Planning Act as soon as possible. The Survey Department will impose fees for its services by way of rules made under clause 40(2)(e) of the Bill. The second amendment spells out an additional ground for removing the name of a registered surveyor from the registers of surveyors and practitioners. The existing grounds provided in the Act are death and cancellation of registration after disciplinary proceedings. This additional ground, which I may add is modelled upon corresponding clauses in the Architects Bill and Professional Engineers Bill, is where the registered surveyor has not renewed his practising certificate continuously for more than 10 years. Such a person would most probably not be in touch with his profession. He will not, of course, be prevented from applying for re-registration. The amendment brings the Bill in line with the other two Bills. The other amendments to the Bill are consequential amendments or amendments of a technical or drafting nature. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. RECLAMATION (PULAU SERAYA/PULAU AYER MERBAU/PULAU SAKRA)”
“Other amendments to the Bill which are also similar to those made to the other two Bills are: First, in view of the impression that the Bill discriminates unfairly against practitioners in the private sector, Government surveyors will no longer be exempted from having to pay for registration; Second, statutory boards which carry out title surveys as part of their statutory functions will not be required to take out a licence; Third, as surveyors in the private sector will be required to be registered as well as to take out annual practising certificates in order to engage in title survey work, the Bill amends other Acts consequent to the introduction of practising certificates as a prerequisite for engaging in title survey work. If I may turn to the few amendments which are peculiar to this Bill. The first concerns payment of title survey fees. At present, survey fees deposits are made with the Survey Department as required under the provisions of the Planning Act for the purpose of meeting the cost of title survey services rendered by the registered surveyor as well as the cost of the services rendered by the Survey Department, and the Chief Surveyor makes payment out of these deposits. However, as the Bill now abolishes the fixed scale of fees for private sector registered surveyors and the fees for services rendered will be entirely a matter of negotiation between the parties, it will be difficult to determine the amount of deposit required to meet their charges. The Select Committee, therefore, proposed that such payments of deposits need not be made in future. References to such a deposit in this Bill have been deleted and appropriate transitional provisions have been inserted.”
“My colleague, the Minister for National Development, has already dwelt on these at length, but let me mention them briefly: First, to prevent nominee shareholdings for the benefit of non-professionals, at least two-thirds of the shares of any corporation licensed to supply title survey services must be owned legally as well as beneficially by registered surveyors or registered surveyors and allied professionals. Second, the control and management of the business of a licensed corporation or partnership, insofar as it relates to the supply of title survey services, must be in the hands of a share-owning director or partner who is a registered surveyor with a valid practising certificate and ordinarily resident in Singapore. Third, empowering the Land Surveyors Board to make rules to require partnerships, unlimited liability corporations and individual practitioners to take out and maintain professional liability insurance in respect of title survey services. This would allow the Board, if it deems fit, to respond to the needs of the industry when they arise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." This Bill, Sir, was committed to a Select Committee in March this year. It is linked to the Architects Bill and the Professional Engineers Bill in that they have very similar provisions concerning, for example, the definition of "allied professionals" and the provisions relating to multi-discipline and corporate practice. Therefore, all three Bills were committed to a single Select Committee. You have heard from my colleague, the Minister for National Development, about the written representations received by the Committee and the oral evidence heard. The representors were particularly concerned about the new provisions in the Bill regulating multi-discipline and corporate practice by registered architects, professional engineers and registered surveyors in Singapore. Members have, I am sure, read the Report of the Committee. The Select Committee has made several amendments to the Land Surveyors Bill and they fall into two categories. Firstly, amendments which are similar to those made to the Architects Bill and the Professional Engineers Bill. Secondly, amendments which are peculiar only to the Land Surveyors Bill. If I may deal with the first category, the common amendments. The amendments relating to multi-discipline and corporate practice and professional liability insurance follow those made to the Architects Bill and the Professional Engineers Bill.”
“What for? Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“It may not be convincing to Dr Lee Siew-Choh, but the point is, as the Prime Minister said, if you have proportional representation in Singapore, you will in fact be concocting a brew that will blow up our multi-racial harmony, because you will have political parties which are based on race, religion, language. We cannot afford it and he pointed out that no Commonwealth nation has proportional representation. He also pointed out and asked Dr Lee Siew-Choh to look at the dismal experience of those European countries which had proportional representation and the frequent changes and musical chairs which take place there. On NCMPs, Dr Lee Siew-Choh's memory needs to be jogged. He says that he never asked for more NCMPs. Let me quote what he said on 29th November 1989 [Hansard, Vol. 54, No. 8, col. 752]: 'Presently, we have one elected MP and one, or if you like, two NCMPs. So we have room for another three or four NCMPs. Therefore it would be logical to have more NCMPs as a first step.' Then on 29th March 1990 [Hansard, Vol. 55, No. 15, col. 1026], he said: 'If the Government feels that there should be more Opposition MPs, all it has got to do is to increase the number of NCMPs, to make up the total number of Opposition MPs to six.' On the question of election expenses, I agree with Mr Chiam that we should not go the way of the United States. But this amendment that we are making is to increase the 1954 figure to $1, and I do not see how it can make us go the way of the United States.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I apologise to Dr Lee Siew-Choh for not replying to him on proportional representation because my reply would have been similar to what the Prime Minister stated only a few months ago. Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised this on 13th March 1991 in this House and said exactly what he has said just now. But this question has been effectively replied to by the Prime Minister when he pointed out that proportional representation -”
“Or if, as happened in one case, there were two who were returned after the general election - Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam - there would be scope only for one. In other words, whatever number, whether it is three or four or six, as prescribed by the Parliamentary Elections Act, it is that number less the number of successfully returned Opposition candidates. So there is no going back on its word by the Government in this regard. As for the points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh on the Elected President, I think it is more appropriate to raise these pointsunder the debate on the Presidential Elections Bill that we will have at the next sitting.”
“How is this amendment going to bring about money politics? What do they mean by "money politics"? My understanding of the term "money politics" is that someabuse it as people entering politics for purposes of enriching themselves. How does this amendment entitle that? Some may also want to use it. To me, money politics is, in a sense, bribery, treating or other illegal practices. How does this amendment permit that? There are very strict provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act on election offences, unauthorised activities and corrupt offences for the purposes of the elections, which include carefully defined offences on bribery, treating and illegal election activities; all of which are not affected by this amendment at all. So I would like to hear from them as to how this amendment brings about money politics. All it does is that it revises the figure which was introduced in 1954. If I may just touch on another point on NCMPs. Dr Lee Siew-Choh started off his speech by saying that the Government went back on its word when it introduced the amendments in 1984. True, the Prime Minister said, when he moved the amendments, that the Constitution provided for a maximum of six NCMPs and the Parliamentary Elections Act, to start with, provided for three NCMPs. Dr Lee Siew-Choh said we went back on our word because we have not brought about three NCMPs. But he has misunderstood the concept of NCMPs. It does not mean that, regardless of the result of the elections, there will always be three NCMPs because if there is one member who is returned successfully, like Mr Chiam in the first-past-the-post system, then there is only provision for two NCMPs.”
“It has shown that the NCMP concept does allow an Opposition party's representative, although not successful in the elections, to be in this Chamber to take on the Government. So from a total rejection of the NCMP concept, the NCMP of the Workers' Party here has asked for more NCMPs. Well, fine. It may be that Mr Chiam has a crystal ball and he may be right that we may never need NCMPs, but we said, let us agree to Dr Lee Siew-Choh. But should itbe 4, 5 or 6? Our view is that there should be some flexibility. Various factors would obviously have to be taken into account, for example, how many Nominated MPs will there be in the Chamber? If there are no Nominated MPs, then perhaps the case can be made up for a greater number of NCMPs. Also what is the stand of other political parties? If others, like the WP, accept the NCMP concept, maybe then again, there would be a case for increasing the number to more than four. But for the time being, as I have said, the Government intends to increase it gradually and the intention is for four NCMPs for the next elections. If I may turn now to the question of election expenses. Mr Chiam is trying to make the point that there is no need for this amendment because he and the other Opposition parties have managed to work within the limit. That is fine too. But in narrating the expenses that he has achieved over the different elections, he was first able to confine his expenses to half the limit, then it increased. In the last election, he reached 80% of the limit which shows that in the next election, it may be 90% or 99%. The reasons for this amendment are as I have given in my speech. But both Mr Chiam and Dr Lee Siew-Choh have bandied the phrase "money politics" without defining "money politics".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in replying to the points which have been raised, first, let me take the points which have been made by Members on the question of NCMPs. Dr Arthur Beng asked about the criteria and whether we can fix it at a particular formula. Mr Chiam, of course, consistent with his Party's position on the question of NCMPs, is opposed to the very idea of NCMPs. And Dr Lee Siew-Choh is in a very odd position of having, in the same breath, to recall his Party's opposition to the NCMPs and yet square this with his recent request to ask for more NCMPs. Replying to Dr Arthur Beng, Members know that when we introduced the NCMP by constitutional amendments in 1984, we stated that we recognised that this was a novel, unprecedented constitutional device for the airing of different views in this House other than the Government views, or views of the party in power. And we said, at that time, let us see how it works in practice. Opposition parties - Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Workers' Party (WP) and even Singapore United Front (SUF) - opposed vehemently. In the 1984 elections, there were no takers. It was offered to the highest defeated candidate, Mr M.P.D. Nair, of the Workers' Party. They claimed that it was hypocritical, undermined the whole system of parliamentary democracy and so the WP rejected it. It was then offered to Mr Tan Chee Kien and the SUF also rejected it. In 1988, the Workers' Party made an about turn. What was the result? The result was that we now have Dr Lee Siew-Choh in this House, a defeated candidate in the elections, but making speeches, expressing viewpoints, often sharply critical of the Government. But there has been movement.”
“If the electionis contested, no order can be made between the issue of a writ of election and polling day. This is to prevent changes to the amounts during an election. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The basic trigger mechanism for deciding how many NCMPs will in fact be declared elected is not changed, ie, Parliament will have to see first the number of Opposition MPs returned. Thus, if the maximum specified in the Order is five NCMPs, then the actual number of NCMPs will be five less the total number of Opposition MPs returned in the general election, that means successful candidates. For the next general election, Government's intention is that the provision should be made for four NCMPs. I come now to the third category of amendments. Section 69 of the Parliamentary Elections Act presently prohibits candidates in a general election or a by-election and their election agents from incurring expenses in respect of the conduct or management of the election in excess of $6,000 or 50 cents per elector on a register of electors, whichever is the greater. This maximum amount was fixed in 1954 and has not been revised since. In view of the depreciation in the value of money over time and rising costs, this limit should be reviewed. It is therefore proposed to raise the maximum amount a candidate or his election agent can incur in respect of the conduct or management of an election to $12,000 or $1 per elector on a register, whichever is the greater. Although the maximum permissible amount on election expenses is a matter of detail, at present it can only be amended by an Act of Parliament. It is proposed to set out the new maximum amounts in a new Third Schedule which can be amended subsequently by order in the Gazette by the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Elections Act. No order to amend the Schedule can be made during the period between the issue of a writ of election and nomination day.”
“Consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act are therefore necessary to provide that any person who is disqualified from being elected to Parliament by reason of having been found guilty of any offence, or having failed to file returns regarding his election expenses, in connection with any Parliamentary election will also be disqualified from being elected to the Office of President. The second category is NCMPs. In 1984, the Constitution was amended to provide for a maximum of six Non-Constituency MPs. Section 52 of the Parliamentary Elections Act currently fixes the maximum number of NCMPs at three, that is to say, three less the total number of Opposition Members who are elected under our first-past-the-post system. Sir, during the debate in the Committee of Supply earlier this year, the NCMP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, noted that there was only one NCMP. He asked the Government to state its policy on NCMPs. To this, the Prime Minister replied that the Government intended to have more NCMPs after thenext elections, at least four and perhaps six. In order to achieve this objective, the Parliamentary Elections Act has to be amended. The Bill therefore amends section 52 of the Act to enable the President, by Order in the Gazette, to increase (to a number not exceeding six) the number of NCMPs to be declared elected for the purpose of any general election. Any such Order must be made between the time of dissolution of Parliament and Nomination Day. Such Order will lapse at the following dissolution of Parliament. If no Order is made or no Order is in force, the number of NCMPs will remain as currently prescribed, ie, three less the total number of Opposition MPs elected.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The provisions of this Bill fall into three categories. First, there are the provisions which are purely consequential to the amendments enacted earlier this year to the Constitution relating to the Office of Elected President. Secondly, the Bill makes amendments to the provisions concerning Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs). Thirdly, the Bill amends the provisions relating to the maximum amount of election expenses which can be incurred by a candidate in an election or his election agent. Let me deal with each of these three categories of amendments. First, the amendments which are consequential to the constitutional amendments enacted earlier this year. The amendments which we enacted earlier this year in this House on the Elected President provide for various aspects of the Office of Elected President. This includes the provision that a person will be disqualified from being elected as President if he is subject to the disqualifications for Members of Parliament in Article 45 of the Constitution. Article 45 disqualifies a person from being elected to Parliament, inter alia, if the person is found guilty of any offence in connection with Parliamentary elections, or if the person has failed to file the return of election expenses on time and in the manner required by law. The Parliamentary Elections Act also spells out these disqualifications.”