PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill amends the Parliamentary Elections Act, which I will refer to as the PEA. Together with the amendments to the Constitution moved earlier by Deputy Prime Minister Wong and the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill, which will be read next, it refines and updates our political and electoral system. Some of the amendments also implement recommendations made by the Committee that reviewed the conduct of the 2006 General Elections.

The Bill contains three substantive changes. First, it increases the maximum number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) who can be elected to Parliament. Second, it introduces a Cooling-Off day on the eve of Polling Day. And, third, it refines and liberalises rules on Internet election advertising.

The Bill also contains a number of technical amendments. These include the introduction of contingency measures in order to deal with unexpected situations during elections, the streamlining of election spending rules; and the updating of offences and maximum penalties in the Act.

I will bring the House through each of the changes in turn.

The first set of changes relate to the NCMP scheme. During the reading of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Wong had explained the rationale for the scheme, when it was introduced in 1984, and why it is being expanded now.

Column: 233

The Constitution has just been amended to increase the maximum number of NCMPs that the PEA can provide for, from six to nine. Under the PEA, the number of NCMPs is set at three, or such greater number not exceeding six, as the President may specify, less the total number of Opposition MPs elected to Parliament. Clause 15 of the Bill amends the PEA to raise the cap on NCMPs to nine. It also does away with the need to fix the maximum number of NCMPs by Presidential Order each time there is a General Election. The number of NCMPs will therefore be nine, less the total number of elected Opposition MPs. There will also be a cap of two NCMPs coming from any one Group Representation Constituency (GRC), and a cap of one from any Single Member Constituency (SMC). This will spread out the NCMPs more evenly and make them more representative of voters who had voted for the Opposition nationwide in the General Election. In addition, the cap on NCMPs coming from a GRC will clearly distinguish between the winning and losing teams in a GRC.

Sir, at this point, I would like to touch on a commentary by Ms Yew Lun Tian which appeared in today's Zaobao. Ms Yew referred to the debate on the constitutional amendments. She referred to the positions taken by Deputy Prime Minister Wong, the PAP MPs as well as Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim. She then ended with her own view on the NCMP proposals – that it was all about getting more seats in Parliament. She dismissed the Government's position on the NCMP scheme, as being superficial sugar coating, ie, we were using principle as a charade, and our real motive was to get political advantage. It is unfortunate that Ms Yew's cynicism prevents her from being able to truly appreciate what we are trying to do. We are engaged in the very

Column: 234

serious task of shaping parliamentary democracy, with long-term consequences for our constitutional and parliamentary structure. All of these will have important implications for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Our reasons for making these changes have been reiterated several times: one, Singapore needs a Government with a clear, strong majority, that can provide good governance in the long-term interests of Singaporeans; and, two, at the same time, there is a legitimate desire amongst Singaporeans to have more diverse views, including Opposition views, articulated in Parliament.

The NCMP scheme meets these needs. The present changes are significant because they provide for a minimum of nine Opposition members in Parliament and, in addition, there will be nine Nominated MPs (NMPs). Parliament will see a wide variety of views expressed. The NCMPs will, in some sense, also represent the views of a significant minority who voted against the Government. The changes will encourage voters to vote thoughtfully in accordance with their own long-term interests. This will strengthen our political system for the longer term.

If all we say is a charade and if these changes are motivated only by cynical electoral calculations, then making the changes is not a clever move for the PAP Government. If Ms Yew were to think it through, she would note the following possibilities: if NCMPs perform well in Parliament, they will gain credibility. They can show Singaporeans that they understand the issues, have serious views on the national agenda and have the potential to form a government one day. They will then become a more serious force in the next elections. A group of nine parliamentarians from the Opposition can form a very credible caucus, a base from which they can expand their

Column: 235

influence. Thus, on a long-term analysis, if this Government was only interested in its own electoral prospects, then increasing the number of NCMPs is not a good idea. It is, in fact, a bad idea. It is noteworthy that the Government's own MPs do not necessarily support the idea.

Thus, we come back to the question: why would this Government take this step which will give the Opposition more space? We are doing it because we believe strongly in doing what is right for Singapore. We believe that these changes are good for Singapore. And we believe that these changes will make for a better Singapore. Singaporeans will know that alternative views are not shut out, as indeed the debate yesterday in which Ms Sylvia Lim and the NMPs participated showed. The changes are not being made based on cynical, tactical, short-term calculations, which will not work anyway.

Cooling-Off day

The next major amendment is the introduction of a Cooling-Off day, on the eve of Polling Day. This was announced by the Prime Minister in November last year. Currently, after Nomination Day, there will be a period of campaigning, followed immediately by Polling Day when Singaporeans cast their vote. The Bill proposes to increase the minimum period between Nomination Day and Polling Day by one day, and to use that extra day as a Cooling-Off day. The reason for a Cooling-Off day is clear. During an election campaign, various parties and their candidates will put forward their manifestos and ideas to the electorate. They will engage in debates across the island on national policies and local issues, and seek to appeal to people's hearts and minds. There will be political messages during this period, at election rallies and door-to-door campaigning, on television and in print, from lorries driving

Column: 236

around blaring political messages from loudspeakers and, in the future, via the new media. The Cooling-Off day will give everyone some time after the excitement and emotion of campaigning, to reflect on the issues and the arguments made, analyse logically and rationally what is at stake, and then go to the polls the next day to cast their votes. This is important because in a General Election, each one of us will be making very significant decisions about our future and Singapore's future.

Another reason for having a Cooling-Off day is that, if emotions do run high between contesting groups of supporters during campaigning, the risk of disorder on the eve of Polling Day and on Polling Day itself will be reduced. The concept of a cooling-off period for voters to reflect on issues is not novel. Sometimes referred to as "campaign silence" or "election silence", it exists in various forms in several other countries. In Australia, the law imposes a three-day blackout on election advertising via broadcast media, ie, television and radio, before federal polls. In Indonesia, there is a three-day cooling off before legislative elections, and a two-day period before presidential elections. Polling in the Philippines, Italy, Russia and Mexico, among other countries, are also preceded by a period of cooling off.

Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill amend the Act to increase the minimum period between Nomination Day and Polling Day by one extra day; this extra day being the Cooling-Off day. The minimum period of campaigning will, therefore, not be affected in any way as a result of the introduction of the Cooling-Off day.

Currently, the Parliamentary Elections Act prohibits the publication or display of election advertising on Polling Day. There are a number of existing exceptions to this under the Act:

Column: 237

First, publication of news relating to the election in the newspapers, on radio and television, may continue on Polling Day;

Second, the continued lawful display or posting of banners and posters is allowed;

Third, Internet election advertising lawfully published before Polling Day does not need to be taken down on Polling Day;

Fourth, individual transmission of personal political views on the Internet, on a non-commercial basis, is permitted; and

Fifth, the distribution or promotion of a book for not less than the commercial value is acceptable on Polling Day if the publication had been planned regardless of whether there was to be an election.

Clause 29 of the Bill amends the Act to extend the existing prohibition of election advertising on Polling Day to Cooling-Off day. The exceptions to ban that I mentioned earlier will similarly be extended. There are two additional points that I will make. The first is that instead of allowing only individual transmission of personal political views on the Internet (on a non-commercial basis), we have widened the exception to cover any form of telephonic or electronic transmission of personal political views by individuals to other individuals (on a non-commercial basis). This is to take into account new forms of individual personal communication. This wider exception will apply both to Cooling-Off day as well as Polling Day. The second point is that Party Political Broadcasts on television, which have traditionally been aired on eve of Polling Day in previous General Elections, will be permitted on Cooling-Off day. This exception will be prescribed.

Column: 238

The Bill also makes other amendments to give effect to the Cooling-Off day. The Act currently prohibits any person from wearing, using, carrying or displaying political propaganda, such as flags, banners, badges and placards on Polling Day. Candidates may, however, wear their party political badges. Clause 27 of the Bill extends the prohibition, and its exception, to the Cooling-Off day. Canvassing and door-to-door visits are banned on Polling Day. Clause 34 extends that to the Cooling-Off day.

In previous General Elections, permits for election rallies would not be granted on Polling Day. Clause 35 of the Bill expressly prohibits the holding of any rallies on both the Polling Day and Cooling-Off day. It also clarifies that, during an election period, rallies at Speakers' Corner will be subject to the same permit regime as election rallies held at any other place in Singapore.

To summarise, with the exception of Party Political Broadcasts, which will still be permitted on the Cooling-Off day, what is presently prohibited on Polling Day will also be prohibited on Cooling-Off day. And what is currently allowed on Polling Day will also be allowed on the Cooling-Off day.

Some people have questioned why Singapore needs a Cooling-Off day, when Singaporeans are, by nature, rational. The argument they make is that Singaporeans are rational – so they do not need an additional day to think. There is a logical disconnect to this argument. Rational people do not suffer from being given an extra day to think and reflect on serious issues.

Sir, for us, good governance is both fundamental and vital. We do not have the luxury of resources or strategic depth, or size. We cannot, like some other countries, endure a period of poor governance without suffering considerable

Column: 239

damage. We survive and prosper as a city state, in an ever changing international political and economic environment, by having good governance. All that we have around us – our peace and security, our infrastructure, our world-class institutions and our cosmopolitan skyline – could not have been achieved without good, strong and consistent governance, working in partnership with a hard-headed, rational and hardworking people.

We all, therefore, have to take the electoral process very seriously because the directions that a government takes in its five-year mandate, after an election, will have a disproportionately substantial impact on Singapore. We must, therefore, encourage everyone to vote rationally and logically. Our voters must be able to sift out misinformation and rhetoric. They must be able to distinguish policies and manifestos that sound good but are actually hollow, from those that are really in the best interests of Singapore. The integrity of electoral process, which underlines the proposal for a Cooling-Off day, is part and parcel of our political morality; a political morality which also includes principles such as the integrity of our public service and Government, meritocracy as well as racial and religious harmony. It is for these reasons that the Government has decided to introduce the Cooling-Off day.

Liberalisation of Internet election advertising

The third set of key amendments in the Bill relates to refinement of Internet election advertising. Under the existing law, only political parties, candidates and election agents are permitted during an election period to campaign on the Internet by putting up election advertising. Specifically, under the PEA, a person (other than a political party, a candidate or his election agent) will be considered a "relevant person" if: one, he operates a website under the class licence scheme run by the Media Development Authority

Column: 240

(MDA); and, two, he is required under the class licence to register with MDA on account that he engages in or provides any Internet programme for the propagation, promotion or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore.

Under the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations, a "relevant person" is not allowed to engage in any Internet election advertising during the election period. Members may recall that in 2007, the Government had set up an Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) to study the implications of new media on society and to recommend appropriate ways that the Government could address the impact. On 9th January last year, MICA announced that the Government had accepted a number of recommendations that AIMS had made. MICA also announced that individuals would be allowed to participate in Internet election advertising during the election period. Clause 29 of the Bill gives effect to that commitment, by removing references to "relevant persons" from the Act altogether. This means that the current blanket prohibition on individuals operating non-party political websites will be lifted. I hope netizens will act responsibly when running such sites.

While the rules on propagation of political views on Internet have been liberalised, nevertheless, foreign interference in our politics will remain prohibited. Clause 38 amends the Bill to make it an offence for any person, other than a Singaporean, to knowingly publish or display any election advertising during the election period. The prohibition applies in the real world as much as it does to the virtual world. This is partly a technical alignment, since the law already makes it an offence for foreigners to take part in election activities in Singapore.

In another significant move to liberalise Internet election advertising,

Column: 241

MICA had also earlier announced that candidates, their political parties and election agents will be allowed to use new media as election advertising during the election period. This will be done by expanding the positive list under the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations. More details on the expanded positive list will be announced by MICA in due course.

Technical amendment: Election contingencies

I will next move to the more technical aspects of the Bill.

After the 2006 General Election, a Review Committee was established to identify gaps in the conduct of the election and to recommend improvements for the future. Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced during the Committee of Supply debate in 2008 that one of the recommendations of the Review Committee was for the Elections Department to draw up contingency plans to deal with potential disruptions to an election. These would include man-made situations, such as bomb threats or open violence, as well as natural calamities such as flood, fire or public health threats. Legislative amendments were necessary as the current electoral laws provided for only a limited range of responses to deal with crisis situations and disruptions.

The Bill therefore introduces a range of contingency measures to deal with these situations while, at the same time, seeking to ensure the safety of the public and officials as well as the integrity of the election process.

Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the situation where a total failure of election occurs. This is a situation where no candidate is nominated or returned as elected in any electoral division. For instance, if polls have to be aborted

Column: 242

midway due to some natural or man-made catastrophe or where no candidate is nominated due to such a situation. In such an event, the President may, on the advice of the Cabinet, issue a fresh writ of election.

Clause 18 of the Bill introduces new sections 56A to 56F to the Act. New section 56A empowers the President, on the advice of Cabinet, to postpone Nomination Day or change the location of nomination centres because of a crisis situation. Section 56B empowers the Returning Officer to change the time for nomination proceedings because of a crisis.

Section 56C allows the Returning Officer to postpone polling at all polling stations to another day, if it appears that polling at all stations is likely to be obstructed, disrupted, undermined or seriously affected by a crisis situation. If the concern surrounds only one or some polling stations, then the Returning Officer may take any of the following steps:

One, he may temporarily suspend polling for not more than two hours to see if the crisis dissipates;

Two, he may adjourn and postpone polling to another day;

Three, he may wholly abandon and restart polling on another day;

Fourth, he may terminate polling early; or

Fifth, in an overseas polling station, he may abandon that poll if polling cannot start or be resumed or completed.

If polling is resumed or held in place of a postponed overseas poll, it must not close later than the close of the poll on Polling Day in Singapore. Any poll held in place of a postponed poll must also be

Column: 243

held within three months after the dissolution of Parliament.

Section 56E empowers the Returning Officer to take action during the counting of votes, if he is satisfied that counting at all or any counting place is likely to be obstructed, disrupted, undermined or seriously affected by a crisis. In such a situation, he may:

(1) temporarily suspend counting for up to two hours;

(2) adjourn and postpone counting to another day;

(3) wholly abandon counting if it cannot be resumed or completed and the number of votes to be counted will not affect the result of the election for that electoral division; or

(4) wholly abandon counting and restart polling at stations which were affected by the abandonment of counting, if counting cannot be resumed or completed, and if the votes to be counted will affect the result of the election at the electoral division.

If a recount of votes is wholly abandoned, then the results of the first count will be used. If counting of votes is wholly abandoned and polling is restarted, the restarted poll must take place within three months of the dissolution of Parliament.

Finally, section 56F allows the Returning Officer to temporarily suspend the addition or tallying of votes at the principal counting place for up to two hours, or to the next day, where the adding of counted votes may be obstructed, disrupted, undermined or seriously affected by a crisis. When any of the contingency measures outlined above are activated, a notice of action taken with regard to the election proceedings must be published in the

Column: 244

Gazette . If this is not practicable, then it must be published in such a manner as to secure its adequate publicity. This ensures transparency and accountability in the manner that the powers are exercised.

The contingency measures are also accompanied by requirements that safeguard the integrity of the ongoing electoral process. For instance, before counting of votes is suspended or adjourned, the Bill requires all counted ballot papers, uncounted ballot papers and all other documents relating to the counting of votes to be sealed up in separate packets and placed in ballot boxes. These boxes must then be sealed with the Returning Officer's seal and the seals of any candidate or election agent present. Subsequently, before counting can resume, the Returning Officer must show the candidates and their counting agents who are present that each ballot box remains sealed, before the uncounted ballot papers can be taken out.

To sum up, the various contingency powers outlined above are necessary so that the Returning Officer can take appropriate and authoritative measures during election proceedings, if and when they are threatened or actually disrupted by unexpected events. Contingency powers are not unprecedented. For example, the flexibility to adjourn polling in the event of a disruptive event can also be found in Australian electoral legislation.

Technical amendment: Streamlining of election spending rules

The next set of technical amendments relates to the rules that regulate election expenditure and reporting by candidates and their parties. The Parliamentary Elections Act places a limit on how much each candidate can spend in an election. It also regulates the types of permissible expenditure and the manner in which expenditure must be reported to the Returning Officer.

Column: 245

The Act requires every candidate to appoint an election agent, through whom all expenditure must be made, with minor exceptions. The election agent must keep an accurate account of all expenses incurred and donations received, and all disputed claims and unpaid claims for payment. Within 31 days after election results are published in the Gazette , the election agent must submit the Return of Election Expenses to the Returning Officer, together will all bills and receipts. This must be signed and declared to be accurate and complete by the election agent, and be accompanied by a similar declaration by the candidate. The election spending rules in the Act were adopted from the Singapore Legislative Elections Ordinance in the 1960s. They were designed principally to regulate election expenses and reporting by individual candidates and their agents.

The Bill seeks to modernise the regulatory framework and streamline the reporting procedures for election expenses. The first set of amendments relates to election expenditure at party level. Under the Bill, an election agent can give a written authority to the party to pay expenses, up to a total amount spelt out in the authority in respect of the conduct or management of the election of its candidate. The expenses may then be paid by the party or an authorised officer of the party. The party must then submit its statement of the particulars of payment to the election agent within the time limit for the sending in of claims and vouched for by a bill containing the receipt of the party.

The second set of technical amendments caters to GRC-level expenditure. The Bill introduces a concept of "sub-agent" who will be one of the GRC slate's election agents who can be authorised in writing by the other agents to incur expenditure collectively for them. One or

Column: 246

more sub-agents can be appointed per GRC slate. This would allow the team of agents to divide the work of organising the GRC slate's campaign by authorising each other to handle different types of expenses.

The principal election agent of the team will be required to file a consolidated return of election expenses, which must contain all payments made by the sub-agents (together with all bills and receipts and dates of payment for all sums for which no receipt is attached), and the amount of those payments apportioned by agreement to each candidate. The consolidated return must be signed by the principal election agent and be accompanied by a statement made by the principal election agent and every authorised sub-agent in the team.

Election agents of the individual candidates must, however, still fulfil the existing requirement of filing individual returns. These returns must reflect the portion of the expenses incurred by the political party on behalf of the candidates. For GRC candidates, the individual returns must also take into account the expenses incurred for the candidates by the sub-agents.

Review of election offences

Next, I will deal with election offences. Most of the offences in the Parliamentary Elections Act originated from the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance of 1954. Their maximum penalties have not been reviewed since then. Some other offences were introduced in 1959, while a few others were introduced in more recent years. As a result, many of the penalties in the Act have not kept pace with those in contemporary legislation.

As part of the ongoing review of electoral laws, penalties in the Act have been reviewed. For instance, section 55

Column: 247

of the Act contains a list of offences that we can broadly describe as deliberate electoral fraud. These include forging of nomination papers and ballot papers, stuffing ballot boxes, and using devices or appliances that can manipulate ballot papers. Under the current Act, these serious offences carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for up to two years. The offender would also be disqualified for seven years from voting or standing for elections. The Bill enhances the maximum penalty to mandatory imprisonment of up to five years as well as fine. The seven-year disqualification remains.

The proposed changes, subject to one exception, do not add offences to the list of offences for which disqualification for membership of Parliament which may potentially follow, if the sentence exceeds the threshold set out in Article 45 of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, a person will be disqualified from being an MP if he is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $2,000.

The one exception is this. The existing offence of voting when a person is not entitled to vote, in section 38(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, will be made an offence for which an automatic disqualification of three years from voting or from being elected, will apply. This change will bring the penalty for this offence in line with the offence of plural voting, which already attracts a three-year disqualification.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill moves our political system gradually in a direction that better reflects the growing aspirations of our society and in a way that we believe will continue to serve Singapore well, as we face the challenges of the future. They ensure that the Government, which is elected by popular vote, will have a clear mandate to govern in the interests of Singapore, so that our

Column: 248

political system will continue to serve Singapore well, now and into the future.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.29 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Mr Speaker, Sir, elections have always been an emotive issue, wherever and whenever it may be. Singapore is no exception. All our hard work and nation-building efforts would come to nought if we fail to plug the gaps. A look around our region would suffice. Therefore, the changes proposed in the Bill would only serve to enhance the process of parliamentary democracy in Singapore.

I would like to comment and seek clarifications on two amendments, namely, cooling-off period and Internet election advertising.

Sir, by far, the hottest issue is the cooling-off period, where a moratorium on canvassing is imposed on the eve of Polling Day.

The Opposition has cried foul. But they should pause and look at the proposed changes in totality. The Opposition seems to have missed the trees for the woods.

The cooling-off period is meant to help cooler heads prevail, to help voters rationalise, points put forth by all political parties, to study the manifestoes and to make informed choices when casting their votes. If I may, and short of sounding dramatic, the lives of Singaporeans depend on each and every cross marked on Polling Day. There is a clear need for Singaporeans to fully understand who and what they are voting for and how it will impact them, their families and country.

Sir, the People's Action Party (PAP) will have an unfair edge through the proposed Cooling-Off day, say the Opposition. They should realise that the

Column: 249

law applies to the PAP too. If the law does not allow canvassing on the eve and on Polling Day, would the PAP indulge in it and lose its credibility? The actions of any party will be scrutinised by the electorate – right till the end of polling time – and influence the outcome at the ballot box.

Sir, on election advertising. The changes to the Act also include removing the prohibition on election advertising on the Internet. This has been debated in and out of Parliament for some time now, and it is good to see that we have finally taken the step to embrace new media as a legitimate, election advertising platform. Of course, this throws up new challenges for the political parties, but it also throws up new opportunities.

Sir, the Bill also reveals an interesting nugget of information. Although party political broadcasts and election coverage by the registered media is allowed on the eve of Polling Day, there is a good likelihood that there will be online information flow by unregistered media and individuals. The Bill provides a loophole to candidates – if they can prove that the circumstances were beyond their control and when third parties still campaign or advertise on their behalf on the eve and on Polling Day itself.

Despite taking all "reasonable steps and exercising due diligence", in the event it is determined that election advertising was indeed effected, what recourse is there for candidates who may have been set up by their rivals?

Sir, as they say, all is fair in love, war and politics but should we allow such political machinations in our midst? There should be no compromise in the integrity of our politics. To prevent ambiguities, section 78B needs to be tightened to prevent loopholes. The penalty of a fine

Column: 250

not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both should be increased. I would also like to enquire if there will be a corresponding increase in the amount that parties can spend on election advertising? Will there be a limit imposed on the amount spent on election advertising and a proper audit of the source of income? How would this be carried out? Will there be a review of the penalties imposed for breaches of this nature?

Sir, while the proposed amendments to the Bill allow online promotion of a candidate – albeit with the written authorisation of the candidate – extreme care should be taken to ensure that it does not end up as a smear campaign as publishing false statements about the personal character or conduct of a candidate is damaging – both for the party and the individual. Imposing a stiffer penalty is a welcome move.

Allowing election advertising on the Internet will also help to engage our younger voters who are on the Internet almost every day. It may help to increase their political awareness, the ideology of each political party and help them make a more informed choice when casting their votes.

Sir, I would also like to know if there will be restrictions on the type of websites that political parties can advertise in, that is only on their official webpages, or can they advertise on social networking sites as well? How about blogs? Will they be allowed to place links to their official webpages on blogs not run by them?

Although there will be more freedom for Singaporeans to discuss political issues and to promote the contesting candidates online, they should not get carried away as the penalties will be heavier. Operators of non-political party websites will not be required to register

Column: 251

with the Media Development Authority but it would do them good to take heed of the proposed new laws.

On this note, I support the Bill.

3.35 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, the Bill carries several amendments. While some amendments are useful, the Workers' Party (WP) opposes the Bill because of the changes it makes to entrench the NCMP scheme and the introduction of the cooling-off period.

Sir, as regards the NCMP scheme, this is connected to the Constitutional Amendment Bill debated earlier. I have already spoken at length on that Bill, on the reasons why WP voted against the change and I will not repeat the arguments here. I will focus on the introduction of the cooling-off period.

Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce an additional day before Polling Day when campaigning is not allowed. This has been called the Cooling-Off day. On this day, no symbols or badges can be displayed – clause 27; no election advertising can be published or uploaded – clause 30; no canvassing is allowed – clause 34; and no rallies can be held – clause 35.

Sir, in our view, there is no convincing reason to show that after all these years without the cooling-off period, such a change is needed in the national interest. In addition, the change is open to abuse in the ruling party's favour.

The first supposed rationale for introducing this change was given by the Prime Minister several months ago. He mentioned that the PAP Government was worried about irrational voters. The Minister alluded to this concern about irrationality at his Second Reading speech earlier. Sir, in so saying that voters may be irrational, the PAP Government has underestimated the intellectual strength of Singaporeans and is signalling that

Column: 252

Singaporeans are incapable of making rational judgement through the ballot box. These assumptions reveal the distrust PAP has of Singaporeans. Furthermore, this fear of irrationality is arrogant. "Irrational" by whose criteria? Nobody has the right to tell any other person, what amounts to a good or bad reason to cast a vote. Person A may be very affected by one issue, while person B finds it trivial. Each citizen's vote is a valid expression of his own satisfaction or dissatisfactions, aspirations or disappointments. It also make no sense at all that the ruling party is now worried that Singaporeans will be irrational when we have, in fact, become more educated and have greater access to information today.

Sir, the second reason mentioned was fear of unrest. In the first place, our General Elections (GEs) have been run smoothly, with no major incidents all this while. The Government has already instituted measures to reduce the risk of disorder, for example, at the end of Polling Day, when poll results are announced, no longer are supporters of different parties allowed to gather side by side at the announcement centre. Instead, each party gathers with its supporters at different assembly areas to hear the GE results.

Sir, the Government has always said that it does not blindly follow other countries, but does what works for us. Yet, it has tried to strengthened its argument for a cooling-off period by using other countries when the circumstances in those countries are different. For instance, many of the countries mentioned by the Minister had much longer campaign periods. As for Australia, the concern was not to allow rich parties the unfair advantage of buying excess media time at the critical moment, hence, the blackout period. These concerns do not apply to Singapore, as our campaign period only lasts nine days and the campaign rules do not allow us to buy air time.

Column: 253

Sir, besides the lack of justification, the cooling-off period is likely to be abused in the ruling party's favour. Under clause 30, the 24-hour ban on election advertising will not affect the mass media reporting election-related news. This itself is a tremendous loophole, which can be used in a bias manner. Allegations against Opposition candidates or attacks on Opposition policy proposals can be repeated on news, programmes on Cooling-Off day, to drum up sentiment against the Opposition and to discredit the Opposition. Though allegations may also be made against the ruling party policies, policies explanations by civil servants may not be deemed to be election advertising, since the connection with campaigning is more indirect. For instance, if affordability of housing becomes an election issue, the Ministry or HDB could announce the change during the cooling-off period, thus taking some heat off the ruling party. By contrast, Opposition parties will not be allowed to put up new responses as this will be deemed election advertising as defined under the Act.

Sir, though party political broadcasts are allowed to be aired on the Cooling-Off day, these are pre-recorded a few days before and will not be able to address any issues which arose after the recording. Sir, in other countries, experience has shown that cooling-off periods are open to abuses by incumbents. In 1999, the Council of Europe published a handbook on media and elections. It was noted that the cooling-off period may be observed accordingly to the letter of the law, but breached in spirit. An example was given of the 1996 presidential elections in Russia. The incumbent President used the state-owned media to create fear of voting for the Opposition candidate by airing films that depicted gloom if the Opposition candidate won. Instead of being a day for voter reflection, the campaign silence instead had "a distorting effect".

Column: 254

Sir, another way in which the cooling-off period can be circumvented is by showing Government officials carrying out their "official duties" on TV. During the 2004 presidential elections in Indonesia, the European Union's Election Observation Commission noted that the state-owned television company devoted disproportionate amount of coverage to positive reviews of the incumbent President's activities and achievements in office. Examples included a daily pro-Government programme and advertisements for education reform.

Sir, one major problem of the cooling-off period is how to enforce the ban on canvassing, especially if done by word of mouth. In theory, clause 34 provides that nobody is supposed to do any canvassing on the Cooling-Off day and Polling Day. But how can conversations be effectively policed? Members of grassroots organisations can easily do house visits or organise block parties on Cooling-Off day, geared towards garnering support for PAP candidates. Even if violations are reported to the Police, Police resources at that time will be spread very thin.

Sir, all and all, there is no convincing reason to introduce the cooling-off period which will likely to be abused to the ruling party's advantage. For these reasons, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

_Sitting according suspended
at 3.42 pm until 4.05 pm.
_

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

Column: 254

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]:

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to

Column: 255

participate in this debate. I would like to speak on two aspects of the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill: first, what constitutes election advertising; and second, the implications of the 24-hour cooling-off period on the eve of Polling Day.

Section 61 of the principal Act, paragraph (c) of subsection (6) states that "the transmission by an individual to another individual, on a non-commercial basis on what is commonly known as the Internet, of his own political views", is allowed. But in the Amendment Bill, this is deleted and substituted with a new paragraph (d), which says that "telephonic or electronic transmission by an individual to another individual" for the same purpose, is allowed. I would like to ask the Minister what is the reason for this change. Can we take it that the term "electronic transmission" includes the Internet as well as other new means of electronic transmission, such as podcasts, and, if so, that there is no material change to using the Internet in election advertising on a one-to-one basis?

As we know, the way the Internet is used has evolved significantly over the years. From a one-to-one communication, to one-to-many, and now, it is not uncommon to have many-to-many communication through Facebook, YouTube and other sites. As such, under the broad definition of election advertising, why does it appear that the Bill seeks to restrict the use of the Internet to a one-to-one communication? To me, this restriction is not necessary. I would suggest that the Bill avoid specifying the nature of communication on the Internet, and simply state that the use of the Internet for communication during the "election period" is permitted. Unless there is some other intent for restricting it to a one-to-one communication – in which case, it is important for the Minister to explain the reasons.

Column: 256

Also, under section 61 of the principal Act, in paragraph (d) of subsection (6), it is stated that, "the publication of any news relating to an election in a newspaper in any medium or in a radio or television broadcast" is permitted. However, in the Amendment Bill, this paragraph is deleted and replaced with two new clauses under a new paragraph (c). It would appear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Bill seeks now to restrict the publication of election news to a newspaper in any medium that is "permitted to do so under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act". Similarly, the Bill proposes that only radio and TV broadcasts by those licensed under the Broadcasting Act will now be permitted to provide election news coverage. What this means is that online publications – which include popular bulletins such as theonlinecitizen.com , Yawning Bread and Temasek Review , as well as some very popular blogs – which, by their very nature, are not officially licensed, will now not be permitted to publish election news. If this interpretation of the Bill is correct, it is disappointing. In an election, is it not important for voters to have the benefit of a wide spectrum of views, interpretations and perspectives to help them make a choice on Polling Day? Have not Government leaders themselves stressed the need for people to make considered, informed and, ultimately, balanced choices at the polls? How does restricting non-mainstream perspectives serve this end? If the Government is concerned about irresponsible conduct, which is justifiable, surely there is adequate recourse through legislative means – the Sedition Act, the Penal Code, libel laws, just to list a few. This Amendment is, firstly, difficult to justify; secondly, a challenge to enforce; and, thirdly, likely to be counter-productive because it could stimulate increased traffic to these sites.

It is imperative and useful for the Minister to explain how "election

Column: 257

advertising" is defined, and whether there is any form of restriction in communicating personal points of view pertaining to the election through the Internet and other electronic and telephonic means such as through Facebook, Twitter, blogs and podcasts. And if indeed there are restrictions, what might the reasons be? More importantly, why does the Bill seek to deny Internet and telephone-based sites the right to publish news and perspectives on the election?

As we continue to project ourselves as a open, progressive society, it is increasingly important that any restriction on the use of telephones, the Internet or other electronic means for communicating ideas and views is justifiable, not just from the Government’s perspective but, more importantly, from the people’s point-of-view. Given the widespread use of these communication means – a rapidly growing phenomenon – any restriction that is deemed unjustified will be seen as an erosion of basic rights, and is likely to be defied or circumvented, which we know, is not difficult to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to move on to talk about the cooling-off period – 24 hours just before Polling Day. This idea was first brought to light by the Prime Minister in December last year. He said, and I quote: "After a very exciting and emotional election campaign, you really ought to have some time to calm down, reflect on the issues and the arguments, and analyse what is at stake, logically, rationally, and then to go in to the polls to cast your vote in a calm and steady state of mind". This makes sense to me. Calm and quiet is important as we are making up our minds on how to cast the vote. It is for the same reason that countries such as Australia, Indonesia, Italy and Mexico have a similar practice, and from what I gather – other countries are considering the same.

Column: 258

The underlying assumption appears to be that during the cooling-off period, there should be no actions or distractions that could influence voters. Having had the benefit of hearing, seeing and reading about the different perspectives during the campaign period, the final decision on how to cast the vote has to be the individual’s. It is for this reason that the Bill seeks to disallow "election meetings" on the eve of Polling Day. And an "election meeting" is defined as "a public assembly organised by or on behalf of a candidate nominated for election to: (a) promote or procure the electoral success at the election for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates; or (b) to otherwise enhance the standing of any such political parties, candidates or groups of candidates with the electorate in connection with the election".

I support this proposed amendment. However, if the aim is to prevent undue external influence that directly or indirectly "promotes or procures the electoral success" or "enhances the standing of any such political parties, candidates or groups of candidates", then, by extension, the Bill should seek to eliminate all other means of external influence during the cooling-off period. In this regard, any event or activity, not just those that are directly linked to the election, that involves interaction with the public by candidates, should be disallowed. This would include ceremonies, festivals and commemorative events, even if they were scheduled way before the date of the election was announced. Even though, strictly speaking, such events fall outside the definition of "election meetings", it is evident that they can "enhance the standing" of any political party and its candidates and, by doing so, indirectly influence voting and, therefore, the outcome of the election.

Column: 259

Similarly, any media reporting that could directly or indirectly influence the way votes are cast, should be disallowed. As such, editorials, campaign summary reports or any other form of content that is subjective in nature and that gives the media latitude to publish opinions should not be allowed during the cooling-off period. Party political broadcasts and a pure listing of candidates for easy reference by voters would be content that does not transgress this principal of being even-handed and, therefore, can be allowed.

If the residual view held by the Government is that it is all right for the mainstream media to publish campaign summary reports on the eve of Polling Day, then it is only fair and appropriate that the Internet-based media, such as online bulletins, be allowed to do the same. It is quite evident that the mainstream and online media perspectives, especially on social and political matters, can be quite different. As such, their campaign summaries are likely to differ – giving voters the benefit of a broader range of views to choose from without being influenced by one point of view. But the better option, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not to have to mitigate the pitfalls of external influence and prevent it from happening in any form in the first place.

Finally, with all these rules and regulations in place to ensure the objective of a cooling-off period is achieved, there is the question of who monitors and who enforces. As it stands, it would appear that the Commissioner of Police is entrusted with this responsibility. But is it fair to expect him to take on this additional and difficult responsibility of making a judgement call on a matter such as this when he would be very, very busy at that point in time, and this is an area that may not fall within his core expertise or responsibility?

Would it not be more appropriate and make more sense to

Column: 260

create a high level electoral body – a committee of sorts – to serve as a watchdog empowered to closely monitor the conduct of the media and the political parties for adherence to the rules and to ensure that no party – incumbent or challenger – is given undue advantage? The committee would blow the whistle when it sees a transgression. The Commissioner of Police would then step in to enforce the rule of law. Today, there are enough individuals in our society with the seniority and expertise to serve on such an electoral watchdog body – persons who have earned public trust for their integrity and wisdom, and whose neutrality is beyond question. Such a watchdog body would not only help serve as a much needed neutral arbiter, but would also lend credibility to the electoral process and strengthen and sustain public trust.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, even with the rules and regulations in place, there will be many moving parts and grey areas when it comes to effectively and correctly implementing the measures to reap the desired outcomes. This is why it is crucial that the reasons and considerations for the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act are not only intuitive and fair, but seen to be so. The points I have raised and the suggestions thereof are in keeping with this spirit – to help sustain and enhance public trust, not just to maintain confidence, in the electoral process. For this, the realities of politics aside, the residual impression on the ground has to be that the amendments are intended to serve the larger, long-term interest of the citizenry and not just the interests of parties contesting in the election. I believe that, indeed, this is the motivation for the amendments.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Column: 261

4.17 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I rise in support of the Bill. As much has been said about the GRC, NCMP, NMPs yesterday and today, I will devote my comments on possibly the hottest part of the Bill, ie, the Cooling-Off day on the eve of any Polling Day.

I will focus on two points:

(i) The need to continue to be bold in making changes in our political system to ensure it remains stable, and yet equitable.

(ii) The need to ensure that whatever the changes we make, there is trust between the Government and the people, and that they are for the good of Singapore and that the trust cannot be abused.

Sir, I think many Members will remember this photograph [ hon. Member holds up a photograph ] that says a thousand words. This is a photograph of the General Election 1997 where soon after the announcement of the Cheng San results, there was a lot of tension. This Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) award-winning photograph explains what happened. It was taken soon after the Cheng San GE results were announced. The PAP team won over the Workers' Party candidates by a small margin of under 5%. In fact, my Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (MFA) Personal Assistant, Ms Lee Gek Kim, said she has never seen me more garang (fierce) as in the photograph.

My friends will agree that seldom would they see me like that. They often describe me, in all humility, as Mr Cool.

I told Ms Lee, I was being PG. Not Parental Guidance; not PC, or politically correct; but PG, meaning politically- garang . It was for good reason.

Column: 262

We had won, after a tough tussle and the people had decided, yet the Workers' Party then did not want to accept it, even after a re-count.

I showed lots of respect for my political opponents during the campaigning – I also went to the late Mr J B Jeyaretnam's wake when he passed away – but that night Mr J B Jeyaretnam appeared so unreasonable. You could see it in his eyes then, as though he could have swallowed up the whole PAP team. Although it was my first General Election (GE), the inexperienced me stood the ground, stare by stare with Mr J B Jeyaretnam.

Only winners were invited to speak to their supporters, but Mr J B Jeyaretnam insisted to speak, as you could see in the photograph just now.

All the PAP winning team members were booed when they spoke. Tension was running high. I thought and feared that the situation could easily turn into a riot then.

When my turn came to speak, the last one to do so, I plucked up enough courage to address the most riotous crowd. After quickly thanking my supporters I spoke directly to the Workers' Party supporters and I said something to this effect: Look, we have been through a rough and tough nine days of campaigning and the people have decided. Let us respect that decision and work together for Singapore. After all, we are all Singaporeans.

After that things quietened down and the crowd dispersed, but clearly, there was tension and the risk of rioting.

A normal and cool campaign could get heated up and pose dangers if not properly managed. There is room for cooling off for all sides after a robust and heated campaign.

Column: 263

I know there is no perfect formula for such situations but a Cooling-Off day will certainly help. We are not alone in this as Minister Shanmugam has mentioned just now, and Mr Viswa too. Quite a number of countries have adopted the same system. We should be bold enough to change and improve the system if we think it could help bring about a more stable political system. We have seen many improvements in our political system, including the GRC, the NCMP and NMPs and I think this cooling-off period will be a good complement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all these good and bold changes could only be made possible, if there is trust between the government and its people. Changes are not often easily acceptable. Where there is trust, governments can introduce difficult, unpopular and even controversial changes. Some of such changes might take time to prove their worth. Trust is therefore critical. I agree with what Senior Minister Goh said recently and we need to enhance that element of trust. Similarly, as Mr Tay Xiong Sheng said in the Straits Times' Forum page last Friday, Mr Tay said that this is especially true for the younger generation which "witnessed a less dramatic national transformation" than his parents did. Many a time, there were life and death situations. In fact, I was almost killed in the 1964 riots.

Mr Speaker Sir, may I now continue in Malay, please?

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, the trust between a Government and its people is important if the Government wants to introduce something that is new and maybe controversial. Such changes need time to prove its validity or benefits. Trust is important if the principles behind those changes that were made, as explained by Minister Shanmugam, can be accepted by everyone. The people usually believe that changes like the GRC system

Column: 264

as well as the NCMP and NMP schemes are for the benefit of the Singapore political system.

I have just returned from a visit to Uzbekistan and Moscow. I met many people in Tashkent who believe that the system of governance in Singapore is good. Similarly, many Singapore-made products are seen as good and its quality can be assured. For instance, we have the Management Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS)-Tashkent in the Uzbekistan capital. They did not call it MDIS but the Singapore University. They feel confident with the Singapore brand name. This is also similar with the ice-cream products that are manufactured by a Singapore permanent resident, Mr Khan Kapoor Singh, and this ice-cream is called Classic Dairy. However, the Uzbekistan people prefer to call it the "Singapore Ice-cream" because they know that the Singapore brand name will guarantee good quality and that its integrity can be upheld.

I also met an old friend in Moscow who used to work in Singapore. His name is Yuri Sevenkov. He used to work as a reporter from Novosti Press . He loves to recall his time in Singapore. In fact, he remembered that he was here for six years, three months and eight days, and he was very happy to discuss his experiences when he was in Singapore. He said that it was undeniable that our Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is the best in Singapore. I tested him by saying that we are only a small country but he said that "Even though you are a small country, your success is really huge". He really believes that Singapore symbolises a government that is principled in terms of its governance and is a government that is willing to make changes, even though controversial or unpopular, but is clearly for the benefit of the country for the long term.

I also recalled my visit to the Harvard Kennedy School for a short one-week

Column: 265

programme. I was informed by Prof. Kelp that he had met Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew when Mr Lee visited Moscow in 1970. Even though then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at that time showed an interest to learn from the Soviet socialist system, he changed his mind after visiting the Soviet Union and made changes to the political system and the system of governance in Singapore. This showed that we are ready, bold and willing to make changes if it is necessary. And if the changes are found to be bad or do not achieve the objectives that we want, we also want to make further improvements so that the system can be sustained for the long term.

So, Mr Speaker, in short, we must believe in ourselves, believe in each other, make improvements if necessary; and if we are not successful, we must make further improvements until we succeed. We must be bold enough to make changes for ourselves and our country.

*Cols. 307-310

Mr Speaker: Mr Low?

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the Senior Minister of State mentioned in his speech about the Cheng San Election and the near-riot tension that he described as a phenomenon. I would like to ask him to clarify whether he knows what is the cause of this near-riot tension, and what caused the Workers' Party supporters such anger? And whether or not he would agree that the then Asset Enhancement scheme and upgrading programme that the PAP pressed during the election to deny Opposition voters that programme, was the main major cause of the tension that is divisive?

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Should I reply in Malay or in English?

My memory tells me a different story. I remember that during the campaigning

Column: 266

period there were issues, of course, including housing, cost of living. The Workers' Party, I thought, went into the Election thinking that they had won the Election; and because of that, in fact, they had come in really big numbers to celebrate victory. So, when the votes were counted, I could see from the very early stage, the Workers' Party candidates were all very jubilant, very happy.

When the counting started, in fact, they saw that there most of the slips were going to Workers' Party. But as the night went on, it became more even and then they lost. And Mr J B Jeyaretnam then could not accept that and he asked for a re-count. In fact, the results were announced very, very late that night, that morning rather. And, so, I think that it was that expectation to win – they thought they had swung the votes enough to win – but they did not. I think we were able to convince the ground. Yes, we have problems; yes, we have shortcomings; but overall, I think, the PAP was still the answer for Cheng San and for Singapore.

And the Workers' Party leaders and supporters could not accept that. When the results were announced, they behaved very, very differently from a victorious group of supporters, like almost rioting. And I think they booed all the speakers and they were refusing to listen to anyone. The fact was that Mr J B Jeyaretnam also came out to try and speak. I think it was lucky that he did not. He could have made the situation worse. But I think that was the reading, that they thought they had won but they did not and they were so unhappy. I do not know for what reason they thought they have lost but they behaved in a way which was threatening to the security and the safety of that night.

4.31 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Cooling-off day. Such a move is clearly designed to further disadvantage the Opposition. If the PAP really wants a

Column: 267

Cooling-Off day, it should also ban all newspaper reports on Polling Day.

The Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) opposes the proposed cooling-off period and wants to see a genuine electoral process that will include; (i) announcing the boundaries of all the constituencies at least six months before the election; (ii) one month of real campaign; (iii) dissolution of Parliament on Polling Day; (iv) free up the media, ban all media coverage on the day of the election; (v) a more equitable distribution and wider choice of advertisement in the same day.

The amendment to increase the number of SMCs from nine to 12 is too little. I would suggest the number of SMCs to be increased to 40, or half of the total number of seats in Parliament. This will enhance Singapore's effort to build a more democratic society.

4.33 pm

Mr Calvin Cheng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in opposition to increasing the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs).

Before I begin, however, I have a few questions regarding the Internet for the Minister. Firstly, I would like to ask the Ministry how it intends to monitor electioneering, election advertising and campaigning on the Internet given the proliferation of blogsites and forums on the Internet, many which are anonymous. Also, would editorials and articles written on these blogsites, Internet newspapers and webzines count as election advertising, especially now that the ban on election advertising also extends to the eve of Polling Day when we expect most activity, including Internet activity? Finally, how does the Government intend to enforce the law against Internet

Column: 268

election advertising by foreigners through websites based overseas?

Sir, I now turn to the topic of NCMPs. In my speech on Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) yesterday, I argued how NMPs cannot be seen as unelected Opposition Members of Parliament, or even an alternative Opposition because not only are they not politicians, they should by and large not be representing political, partisan issues. NCMPs, on the other hand, are not only unambiguously Opposition politicians, being members of Opposition political parties, having participated in a General Election and lost, but also categorically oppose issues that the ruling party stands for.

Sir, I do not know how to deliver the next part of the speech without being offensive and I would like to apologise to Ms Sylvia Lim if I cause any offence. Sir, people who are proposed to be NCMPs are politicians who stood for an election and lost. Sir, they lost. They lost. I do not know how much more emphatic I can be about this. These are politicians who have stood on certain political platforms, for certain political issues and the majority of the electorate have considered these issues, these politicians and have rejected them at the polls. To then allow them into Parliament flies in the face of the logic of a democratic election at best and, at worst, is a slap in the face to the people who have voted against them.

Mr Calvin Cheng (Nominated Member): Sir, I understand the objective of the Government to accommodate the desire of some Singaporeans to see more opposing voices in Parliament. However, surely opposing voices are not what is needed, leaving issues of quality aside, but voices that represent the democratic will of the people. NCMPs are politicians

Column: 269

who have stood for elections on their political beliefs, beliefs that have been rejected by a popular vote. If the people wanted these political views to be represented in Parliament, important bread-and-butter views that affect and influence the daily lives of all Singaporeans, they would vote them in. If they do not vote them in, then they cannot still have them in Parliament because, staying with the bread analogy, they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Sir, I applaud the ruling party on their incredible generosity in allowing their vanquished opponents a back door into Parliament. I was flabbergasted when the Opposition Members of Parliament yesterday voted against the Constitutional changes. This is such a golden opportunity to the Opposition it would be silly for them to reject it. In the business world, if my rivals who have beaten me then offer me a chance for my employees to work in their company, so I have a better chance of beating them the next time, I would be daft to turn it down. I say all of these with irony, of course. Parliament is not an Opposition MP incubator. Its function is not for beaten Opposition politicians to prove themselves, earn their stripes, so that they can compete better at the next election, and then perhaps get elected into Parliament for real. If Singapore wants a good strong Opposition, this Opposition needs to fight their way into Parliament tooth and nail, and not be mollycoddled. This is not only damaging to Singapore, it is damaging to Parliament, and even damaging to the Opposition themselves. The anecdote that Dr Lim Wee Kiak gave yesterday about the correlation between baby strollers and retardation was especially enlightening.

If there is a need for more free-flowing debate in Parliament on political issues, rather than the non-political, non-partisan

Column: 270

issues that I have argued NMPs should stand for, I call for the ruling party to lift the Whip if they have an overwhelming majority in Parliament, as is the case now. Before I entered Parliament, I was also under the impression that the PAP thinks and acts as a monolithic entity; of course, this is ridiculous, for how can so many people think as one. But this impression I had, I am sure many people share. I am now convinced the contrary. I am pretty sure the elected backbench Members of the PAP are capable of independent thought and may not agree with some of the issues proposed by their frontbench colleagues; more importantly, they were popularly elected into Parliament. If the party Whip was lifted more often, I am confident that there will be more constructive opposing voices in Parliament. The Government should be confident of convincing its own party members of its policies in Parliament. However, Sir, even if the Whip were not lifted, NCMPs are not the answer. Singaporeans who want Opposition MPs in Parliament should vote for them. If they reject these Opposition MPs at the polls, they should stay rejected.

I, thus, oppose the motion to increase the number of NCMPs.

4.39 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot remember whether I was ever in a baby stroller so I hope I would be intelligent.

Sir, I would like to focus on the amendments relating to the cooling-off period. I would like to ask the Minister how much additional resources have been allocated for the elections to ensure proper governance and enforcement of the cooling day. My concern is really around the safeguards of the political candidates because this is a new concept in Singapore's politics. I would also like to know if we have performance studies to reach this conclusion that the Cooling-

Column: 271

Off day will be better and fairer for Singaporeans, the ruling Party as well as Opposition parties. I understand that the Minister have also mentioned examples with Australia and Indonesia, but in our current context, have we really thought through this in a sense that it will be fair to all parties? I think the Members before have also mentioned their concerns which brings me to my next point because there is always a danger of disruptions and distractions coming from online chatter and coffeeshop talk during the Cooling-Off day. Being a small island, information – or misinformation – can be transmitted pretty quickly. As there is no official political messaging that can be carried out during the cooling-off period, will this policy hinder prospective candidates to respond to rumours or misinformation that may be spread just before or on Cooling-Off day itself?

Now, the new regulations basically regulate political parties, candidates as well as their agents or sub-agents but there is nothing to regulate third parties who participate in online forums, Internet or even coffeeshop talk. So what measures are in place to ensure that when Singaporeans vote, prospective candidates have the avenue to effectively counter any damaging reports or rumours by political outsiders or even third parties or overseas political lobbies, for example, without infringing on the rules of the Cooling-Off day? Would we consider an independent watchdog where you could make an appeal to make clarifications on Cooling-Off day?

So my concern is that we may not be able to achieve the intent of the Cooling-Off Day given the variety of uncontrolled factors at play given our small size and connectedness in this Internet age.

Sir, allow me to conclude my speech in Malay.

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] With regard

Column: 272

to having a Cooling-Off day before voting, we must also ensure that the period is truly useful, and will not bring about the opposite effect, where it can become a period when voters will be more confused and distracted by various rumours and accusations, for example, from the Internet and coffeeshops.

I support the objectives of this amendment but hope that all the implications will be studied and considered and, in the end, it will bring about benefits to the people and the nation for the long term.

*Cols. 311-312.

4.42 pm

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): (In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to address this House on the proposed Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, in particular, the introduction of a Cooling-Off day prior to Polling Day in which no form of election campaigning is allowed except for party political broadcasts.

I have actively participated in two contested General Elections, once in 1988 as a PAP activist and the other in 2006 where I stood as a candidate. I can understand the need to have a cooling-off period.

I agree with the Prime Minister when he opined that a cooling-off period was necessary to help voters make rational choices. This 24-hour period during which campaigning will not be allowed will give our voters that extra bit of time to reflect calmly on their decision. The idea of a cooling-off period before the polls is not an uncommon one, as countries like Australia, Indonesia, Italy and Mexico all have some variation of this feature in their electoral systems, with anything from one to three days of campaign silence before the final vote.

Column: 273

Although campaigning in Singapore has always appeared to be peaceful and uneventful, yet during those nine days of hustings, emotions are unusually high not only at rallies but also on the ground. Although mostly not reported, there had been acts of vandalism and threats, veiled and direct, hurled at candidates and election helpers as some people took the opportunity to vent their anger or unhappiness especially at the PAP candidates who were under much more strain. I recalled past election rallies at which there were shouts and raised fists, some pushing and shoving as the crowds got worked up. In some cases, crowds also refused to disperse after the rallies were over. With the state of emotions running high, this provision of an extra day may well help avert or lower the likelihood of a public disorder situation.

In any case, after a very exciting and emotionally charged election campaign, it is good for us to have some time to calm down and reflect on the issues and the arguments before we march into the polls to cast our vote with a thought-through, calm and steady state of mind. By the same token, the candidate and activists will also have time to catch their breath amidst the election furore.

*Cols. 313-316.

Although intended to regulate campaigning, the proposed amendments could also affect our people. "News" is exempted from the "cooling-off" period. However, this exemption covers only licensed media. Internet-only publications, including citizen journalism sites, are not individually licensed and so not considered publishers of news under this law. This effectively means that reports of the final rallies must be posted the same night because if they are posted the following day (the eve of Polling Day), one could be charged with violating the law. My question is whether this will work well in the era of new media and the likes of

Column: 274

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs and other forms of online social media. I sense the enforcement and policing of online violators could be a seriously dicey issue for the Police and Elections Department.

In addition, according to the Bill, the original section 78B of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218) that pertains to bans on election advertising on polling day would be replaced by a revised one that states that no person on Polling Day or the eve of Polling Day shall knowingly publish or permit the publication of election advertising. This includes election advertising on the Internet. The Bill does not clarify exactly what constitutes election advertising and I submit that some clarity on this will be useful. For example, is expressing one's opinion(s) on local current affairs be deemed elections advertising and thus prohibited? How about reader's comments on blogs and posts on online forums including "status updates", Comments on "Wall" and "photos" on Facebook? I hope there is greater elucidation on some of these points as they may affect many in our populace especially the younger voters who are very social-media savvy.

As part of the amendments, the punishment provisions for various election-related offences have been enhanced. I strongly support this move as the previous penalties may seem tokenistic. With greater powers given to the Police to handle these "seizable offences", I hope to see an even more orderly, vibrant and fair elections.

With this, I support the Bill.

4.48 pm

Mr Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill.

Members have generally been supportive of the Bill. I will address the specific points raised.

Column: 275

Let me start with some of the points made on the NCMP scheme.

Sir, NMP Mr Calvin Cheng argued passionately, opposing the NCMP scheme. NCMPs would have lost at the Elections. Why are they allowed in Parliament? He says it flies in the face of logic.

I can see the point he makes. But on that same logic someone else could argue that NMPs, who did not even contest the Elections, why are they in Parliament?

The answer to these questions is not to simply stick to a theory on what Parliament should look like. You start with the theory and then you ask hard questions on what the realities are and what Parliament should look like to meet the needs of our society.

In that context, Deputy Prime Minister Wong has explained why having both NMPs and NCMPs would be good for our parliamentary system. I repeated some of the points in my earlier speech.

I also noted that Mr Cheng thinks that allowing defeated Opposition candidates to become NCMPs will increase their chances of winning the next time. That may be so and no doubt Ms Yew will note that view. But we have to do what we believe is right.

Let me now deal with the points raised on the Cooling-Off day proposal.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad queried on how effective the Cooling-Off day could be as there would always be online chatter and coffeeshop talk. Singapore is a small place, where information and misinformation could be transmitted quickly. How can candidates counter reports and rumours?

Mr Zaqy's points are valid. This is a new provision for us, though similar

Column: 276

concepts have been tried elsewhere, and similar prohibitions already exist on Polling Day. We are making the assessment that it is important and it will be good to give the extra day for Singaporeans to reflect. And we believe that the candidates' record and performance will be more important to Singaporeans than unsubstantiated rumours, whether positive or negative, about them and their political parties. We will have to wait and see how it works out in practice.

Ms Ellen Lee asked whether the ban on election advertising on Cooling-Off day will work well in the era of New Media. She thinks that enforcement and policing of online violators would be difficult. Mr Calvin Cheng expressed similar concerns.

Mdm HoGeok Choo made a similar point as well. She felt that candidates could get third parties to campaign or advertise on their behalf on Cooling-Off day and Polling day, and then argue that that was beyond their control.

The Cooling Off provisions apply as much to the Internet and the virtual world as they apply to the real world. Candidates are prohibited from campaigning on that day and on Polling day. And if they try and circumvent that, they will be committing an offence.

If a candidate surreptitiously engages a third party to campaign on his behalf on Cooling-Off day or Polling Day, both that third party and the candidate would be committing an offence. And I think Singaporeans will not take kindly to such conduct from people who want to be their elected representatives.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan is concerned that parties and candidates may try and project their presence, in a number of ways, short of campaigning, on the Cooling-Off day. That may be so. But it will both be difficult, and quite

Column: 277

unnecessary to try and legislate on every such possible conduct, where candidates try and project their presence. Why do I say so?

Sir, let us go back to the primary reason for introducing the Cooling-Off day. It is to give all Singaporeans an extra day to think over the arguments and issues, before voting. This is critical because in General Elections, as I said earlier, we will be making significant decisions about the future direction of our country.

In that context, and to try to ensure that Singaporeans get a day to reflect, is it necessary to banish all candidates from public presence? The drastic step is really not necessary. Seeing candidates (who would be precluded from canvassing), in various places and events, even if they are as charismatic as Mr Low Thia Khiang, would not, I think, seriously prevent Singaporeans from reflecting on their choices.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan suggested that media coverage that is subjective in nature, including campaign summary reports and editorials, should not be allowed on Cooling-Off day. Sir, the Bill seeks to prohibit campaigning by candidates. In addition, election advertising by anyone, on Cooling-Off day and Polling Day, will be prohibited. The law sets out what amounts to election advertising and how it applies to the media and others – and what the media and the others can and cannot do. There is no reason to go further specifically against the media, and impose a blanket ban on them on Cooling-Off day.

But of course, Mr Sadasivan's real point, the sub-text as it were, is a little different. His suggestion, that the media be prohibited from carrying reports, is probably borne out of a belief that in

Column: 278

effect, the media will be supportive of the ruling party.

I will make three points in response:

First, the media, like everyone else, has to keep to the confines of the law. It cannot campaign on behalf of anyone.

Second, I would suggest that we in this House have reason to have more faith in our mainstream media: Singaporeans do have such faith. The Nielsen Media Index 2009 survey conducted between 1st July 2008 and June 2009 indicated that readership of newspapers in Singapore had remained steady, with 75% of those surveyed selecting newspapers as the preferred source of news. The Edelman Trust Barometer 2010, a survey by US-based Edelman, showed that 68% of respondents in Singapore found newspapers to be the most trusted source of information. Sixty-six percent found TV news a trusted source. This is significantly higher than the international average of 34% who trusted newspapers as a source of credible information. The media is an important institution. As our society matures, the mainstream media can play a very responsible role, and we must expect and require them to do so. We must expect that they will report accurately, honestly, responsibly and with due care, within the confines of the law.

Third, if the media are no more than a mouthpiece for one or the other party, Singaporeans will see through that and the credibility of the media will suffer. Then it will not matter much what the media reports.

Mr Sadasivan also suggested that we form a high-powered panel to monitor transgressions of the Cooling-Off day prohibitions. These can then be enforced by the Police, he says. This suggestion appears attractive at first sight. But it is not the best approach. In our system, it is for the Police to investigate offences; it

Column: 279

is for the Attorney General's Chambers to prosecute the alleged offenders; and it is for the Courts to decide on guilt and innocence of those who are prosecuted.

As a Government, and as a country, we have put in a lot of efforts to build up these institutions of State – the Police, the Attorney General's Chambers and the Judiciary. They command international confidence.

These have been referred to many times, but for the benefit of this House, the Global Competitiveness Report issued by World Economic Forum (2009 – 2010) ranked our Police services third for reliability, and our Judiciary 19th out of 133 countries for judicial independence, ahead of countries like Japan, the US and France. The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2009 ( IMD ) ranked our Legal and Regulatory Framework as number two out of 57 countries. In the World Bank Governance indicators (2006 – 2008), we ranked 14th out of 212 economies for Rule of Law.

The suggestion that a panel be formed is really another way of saying that none of the law enforcement institutions can be relied upon, by themselves, to deliver proper administration of justice.

If we cannot trust these institutions, then I would suggest that we have more serious issues to deal with than the question of whether we should have a Cooling-Off day. And if we do indeed have those issues, then they are not going to be solved by having a high-level panel to help the Police.

In this context, Ms Sylvia Lim opposed two aspects of this Bill, ie, the NCMP scheme and the Cooling-Off day. In this debate, for reasons she gave, she only spoke on the Cooling-Off day. And the reasons for opposing Cooling-Off day are as follows:

Column: 280

She disagreed with the three reasons given by the Prime Minister. She said that the Prime Minister had said that the voters are irrational, and that the Cooling-Off day will give them more time. She says that I implied something similar.

Sir, with respect to Ms Lim, she employs a classic lawyer’s technique, which is to ascribe to the other side something they never said and then proceed to attack that position. If I may use something from my past life. In shipping and collision cases, when the whole question is whether or not the ship has been badly damaged, there will be a photograph taken and then the claimants will say that "this is a wreck" and then throughout the proceedings it will be called a "wreck", regardless of how it looks. Nowadays, a more sensible approach is taken and the ship is said to be "exhibit one" or "exhibit two". But for Ms Lim, the characterisation is that the Prime Minister has said Singaporeans are irrational and, therefore, we need a Cooling-Off day and the Minister of Law has implied the same. Then she proceeds to set out a series of reasons why it is wrong to say that Singaporeans are irrational. It sounds very good but is, with respect, pure rhetoric.

Let me quote what Prime Minister was quoted in the Straits Times as saying on 1st December 2009. He said, "We think that there is merit in this idea of a Cooling-Off day. After a very exciting and emotional election campaign, you really ought to have sometime to calm down, reflect on the issues and the arguments, analyse what is at stake rationally and then go into the polls to cast your vote in a calm and steady state of mind." It is very different from suggesting that Singaporeans are irrational.

What has been said, therefore, is that the additional day will give time for Singaporeans to weigh the arguments, reflect and make a careful choice.

Column: 281

Ms Lim followed that up with another point – that the PAP is arrogant because we called the voters "irrational", but you can see where the arguments come from. And then she followed that up with another point – that we distrust the voters. But that turns the arguments and the facts on its head. Let us see who distrusts the voters. This Government is saying, "Let us give one more day for people to go back and think through the arguments." The Workers' Party is saying, "Let us not give Singaporeans that additional day." Let us be honest. Who does not want Singaporeans to have that day, and why?

She made a further point that Australia and the other countries that have "cooling-off" periods have a longer campaign period. Let us analyse the logic. The others have a longer campaign period, so, therefore, they need a "Cooling-Off" day. We only have nine days and, therefore, we do not need a "Cooling-Off" day. You only need to state the argument to see the logical disconnect.

She then referred to the report published by the Council of Europe and referred to incidents in Russia and Indonesia. But, really, you do not attack such a principle or such a policy on the basis of possible abuse. First, you put forward what reasons or principles you have to agree with or oppose the policy. And I have not heard one argument, as a matter of principle, as to why the policy is not good. Really, again, let us be honest. The point that is being made is, "We, from the Workers' Party, do not want Singaporeans to have this additional day." Is it brought about by the fear or concern that that additional day may mean the arguments of the Workers' Party may not stand analysis during that additional day? Is that the concern?

On the issue of whether there can be violence, I have never put it forward as a

Column: 282

primary reason, nor did the Prime Minister. The primary reason is that this will benefit our system, it will benefit Singapore and is necessary. And there are two other reasons I gave: one is that it reduces the risk of possible violence; and two, it adds to the political morality that we are trying to build in the system. As to possible violence, neither Ms Lim nor anyone else can say, "Look, it will never happen." You have heard Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed describe very graphically what happened. We also know what happened at Jalan Besar in the General Election of 2001, when 16 people were arrested after an election rally of the Singapore Democratic Alliance. A significant part of the crowd stayed back, blocked traffic and jeered. It could have turned ugly, and the police had to disperse the crowd. The fact that we have managed it well does not mean we do not take precautions.

And I agree with Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed that in all of these, what is important is that we must build trust. I agree entirely. Trust has to be an essential part of the political system. In this context, Mr Chiam See Tong stood up and made a number of points. But his primary point was that the "cooling off" is meant to disadvantage the Opposition. Again, like Ms Lim, there was no argument based on principle. You could ask, "Why should it disadvantage the Opposition if the Opposition has credible arguments to put forward to Singaporeans?" In any event, the merits of a policy cannot be determined on the basis whether it would advantage or disadvantage one particular political party. Mr Chiam also made the argument for increasing the number of SMCs. I am not going to reprise the arguments on SMCs and GRCs, except to say that the Prime Minister has indicated that he would ask for the number of SMCs to be increased.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo was concerned that candidates may be framed by their political rivals, presumably by being

Column: 283

falsely accused of breaching the ban on election advertising on Cooling-Off day. She asked that the law be tightened to prevent that. The law already punishes such conduct. Under the Penal Code, any person who fabricates evidence in order to frame another person for an offence commits a serious offence and will face a mandatory jail term as well as a fine.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked whether the Bill restricted the publication of election news only to newspapers licensed under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA), and radio and TV channels licensed under the Broadcasting Act. He said that currently "all media" under the existing Parliamentary Elections Act could publish such news, if I understood him correctly.

I think the hon. Member may have misread the current provision in the law. The phrase in the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) (section 78B(2)(e)) reads, "in a newspaper in any medium or in a radio or television broadcast", and not "in a newspaper,[comma] in any medium or in a radio or television broadcast". So, the phrase "in any medium" qualifies newspaper rather than a standalone provision. In any case, newspapers in Singapore generally have to be licensed under the NPPA, and radio and television broadcasts generally need to be licensed under the Broadcasting Act. The references to the NPPA and Broadcasting Act in the Bill were added merely for the avoidance of doubt.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan also asked why the exemption in section 61(6)(c) only applied to one-to-one communications. He argued that the law should not specify whether communication should be one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many, and asked why such forms of election advertising were not allowed. I think, again, the Member may have misread the Act. Section 61(1)(c) merely requires election advertising to carry the identities

Column: 284

of the authors and publishers. This ensures accountability. The law does not disallow Internet election advertising on a one-to-many or a many-to-many format. Indeed, the Member and other Members will note in my original speech, where I pointed out that MICA is considerably relaxing and liberalising in this area. The exception to this, in section 61(6)(c), which the Member referred to, is one-to-one communication of personal views. We have this existing exception because we do not need to impose this authorship requirement on individuals who SMS (short message service) or email their own personal views to their friends.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan suggested that because the exemptions in section 61(6)(d) only refer to licence to newspapers, television and radio broadcasts and, therefore, other forms of reporting, such as citizen journalism, is disallowed. This again is not an accurate reading of the law. Again, section 61(6)(d) which the Member cites, is an exception to section 61(1)(c) of the Act, which requires those who publish election advertising to carry the identities of the authors and publishers. The Act, therefore, does not prevent sources other than licensed newspapers, television or radio broadcasts from engaging in election advertising. In fact, one of the amendments in the Bill is to remove the restriction on non-partisan political websites required to register with MDA as political websites. But separately, of course, on Cooling-Off day and Polling Day, there are restrictions and I have explained why.

Ms Ellen Lee asked if election advertising would cover new media. The Act defines what will amount to "election advertising". Section 2(1) briefly summarises that it covers posters, banners, articles, advertisements and any other material that can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success of any identifiable

Column: 285

political party, candidate or group of candidates, or otherwise to enhance a standing of any such political party, candidate or group of candidates with the electorate. Such material will still be advertising, even if they can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve any other purposes as well, even though it does not expressly mention the name of any political party or candidate. And bear in mind, the ban applies only to Cooling-Off day and Polling Day. This definition will also cover new media advertising.

Ms Ellen Lee asked whether the expression of opinions on current affairs would also be deemed election advertising. She also asked about "status updates", comments on "Walls" and "Photos" on Facebook . To take any one situation that Ms Lee has raised and to try and apply the definition to it, risks over-simplification or over-generalisation. Each case would have to turn on its own facts. But the definition of election advertising is clear. If the material can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success for any party or candidate, or to enhance their standing with the electorate, then it is likely to be considered election advertising. What format this advertising takes, whether in new media or traditional media, does not make a difference to the legal interpretation.

But as I have said earlier, during my Second Reading speech, individual-to-individual transmission of personal political views, on a non-commercial basis, is not caught by the prohibition on Cooling-Off day and Polling Day. So, if a person posts a message on his blog or on a website which everyone can read, asking readers to vote for a particular party or candidate, that would probably be election advertising. But if he sends an email or SMS to a friend to share his personal political views about the election

Column: 286

and provided he does not collect money for doing so, then that would not be caught.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan asked whether the reference to electronic transmission in the amended section 61(6)(c), includes the Internet and why the reference to the Internet was deleted. He also asked whether Internet advertising was still allowed. The phrase "electronic transmission" appears twice in the Bill. The first is as an exception to the existing requirement in section 61(1)(c), that any election advertising must carry the names and the address of its originators and publishers; second, as an exception to the ban in the amended section 78B on election advertising on Polling Day and Cooling-Off day.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked about the new media restrictions that were imposed on political parties' websites. I mentioned earlier during my Second Reading speech that MICA will be broadening the positive list of new media election advertising that political parties are allowed to use. The details will be announced by MICA in due course. I should mention that in response to the point that Mr Sadasivan made, the Bill widens the exceptions beyond the Internet, for example, email messages, to cover all forms of electronic as well as telephonic transmissions. This is to account for new forms of personal communication. For instance, it is possible for an individual to send an SMS from his computer, through the Internet or to a friend’s handphone.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked whether there would be an increase in the amount that parties can spend on election advertising and if there would be a limit imposed on the amount spent on election advertising. She also asked if proper audits would be carried out on the source of income. Finally, she asked whether there would be a review of penalties

Column: 287

imposed for breaches of election spending limits.

As Members would be aware, the Parliamentary Elections Act imposes a limit on how much each candidate can spend in an election. Currently, the cap for a candidate standing in a Single Member Constituency (SMC) is $3 per elector. The cap for a GRC candidate is $3 per elector divided by the number of candidates on the GRC team. But this is a cap on total election expenditure, and not solely for election advertising. It is for the candidate and his election agent to manage their expenses within that.

The Elections Department will review whether there is a need to increase the cap before every General Election. The additional expenditure that candidates may need to incur on new forms of electioneering activities, such as Internet advertising, will be taken into account in this review. During the last General Election, the expenditure in most constituencies was well below the current limit. As for audits of sources of income, there are safeguards in the Political Donations Act (PDA) as well as the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA).

Any person nominated to stand in an election as a candidate must produce a political donations certificate issued by the Registrar of Political Donations, otherwise his nomination would be void. To obtain such a certificate, he must submit a Pre-election Donation Report and Declaration to the Registrar of Political Donations. After the election, the candidate’s election agent must submit an election expenses return which must include a detailed statement of every donation accepted by the agent or by the candidate for the purpose of campaign expenditure. Every donor must be named in those returns.

Upon receipt of the candidates’ returns, the Returning Officer will make them available for public inspection. If

Column: 288

irregularities or incompleteness are found in the submissions, the matter will be referred to the Police for investigation. In addition to the election expenses return, the candidate or his election agent must also file a post-election donation report, together with a set of declarations, to the Registrar of Political Donations, in respect of all donations received during the election period.

Sir, together with the constitutional amendments, the changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act will further strengthen our parliamentary democracy.

Mr Calvin Cheng: I thank the Minister for his answer. I would like to clarify a point. Sir, I contended yesterday that the crucial difference between NMPs and NCMPs is that NMPs are not politicians. They should arguably be representing non-political issues. That is why, by definition, they cannot be elected nor fight an election. NCMPs, on the other hand, are politicians who stand for a certain political agenda. But that said I accept the Minister's point on making a practical decision on how Parliament should look like, although I remain extremely puzzled by the Government's generosity as it goes against everything that a Machiavellian view of politics would prescribe.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it looks to me like the hon. Minister has not moved on from his past life because he has, clearly to me at least, adopted the classic lawyer's technique of ascribing things to me and then making it a point to debunk them. In particular, by suggesting that I was saying that I do not have confidence in the system as it is. That is not what I said. That is not what I meant.

The reason why I suggested having a watchdog body, for example, is not because I do not have confidence in the Commissioner of Police or the establishment. I think it is important that the public

Column: 289

understands and public sees this as being neutral, as being fair. Secondly, it is also because the Commissioner of Police, I would imagine, would be very, very occupied at that point in time with policing matters.

And, thirdly, very importantly, a lot of the issues that we are dealing with – as it is evident from the points raised by other hon. Members – a lot of the points are grey, they are not black and white. A lot of these points may require careful study and collective wisdom which can come about when you have a watchdog body. That is where I am coming from. Whether it is practicable or not is a different issue but I would like to clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that I was not suggesting that I have no confidence in the system as it is.

Similarly, there was a suggestion that I feel that the media would be less than neutral – the mainstream media. That is not what I was suggesting either. I think it is important that there should be fairness in the way we deal with this. That is why I am saying if the Government decides in the end that it is all right to have campaign reports – which I do believe having been involved in the broadcast media before about coming up with campaign reports – I am not talking about intentionally being biased but opinions and suggestions of the editors actually can be imputed into the programme. So I am not stating that there is an inherent bias that the mainstream media has, but I am saying that it is important for us to prevent any form of subjectivity on that day in the spirit of the reason why we are having a cooling-off period. Sir, I would like to clarify these points.

Ultimately, I completely agree with the Minister that trust is crucial and it is precisely because I feel that trust is

Column: 290

crucial we need to build on what trust we have today that I made the suggestions.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shanmugam.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I hear what Mr Calvin Cheng has said. I think we can leave the debate where he has left it and I thank him for ascribing generosity to the Government for the move. I think it is a little bit more than that. It is because we believe this is the right thing to do and people will read whatever they wish to read but that is more often reflective of their own standpoints and not an objective assessment of this move.

As regards what Mr Viswa Sadasivan said, I hear what he says but let us take his first point that a panel, he called it a high-level panel, comprising people with experience who would be there and they will advise the Police as to the various situations and which ones amount to an offence for which the Police should take action. Let us get straight to the point. That is the function of the Police. Either we say the Police can do it, or we say we do not believe that the Police can do it or can do it neutrally, which is why we need some other neutral party to come in and to "help the Police". So while he did not use those words, those are the natural implications of the statement. This then, going into an alleyway and by-way and suggesting that "Oh, you know the Police would be busy and therefore they need somebody else." Let us get real. If there is an event, or an incident happens or offences are committed, we need to have a Police force to deal with it. It is not a question of whether they are going to be busy, it is not a question of whether there are grey areas which they may not be able to make up their mind. They investigate, they form a view and there are Government lawyers who advise – Attorney-General's Chambers – on whether it amounts to an offence. And if it amounts to an offence or they believe that it amounts to an offence, they take it

Column: 291

up in Court. And then it is for the judges to rule as to whether it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. But all of that is based on a simple premise that we believe these institutions will discharge their duties honestly and properly. If we do not believe that, then we start looking for other solutions, for example, a high-level panel. But as I said to Mr Sadasivan, if we do not believe that, then we have more serious issues than debating about a Cooling-Off day. And if we have those sorts of issues, forming a high-level panel is not going to fix those issues. So I think both of us have made our positions clear. I will move on to his second point.

On media, he says it was not his suggestion that it will not be neutral. I said I thought that that was the sub-text of what he was saying – let us ban all media reports. I think he sort of concedes they may not be consciously biased but it may, nevertheless, creep in subconsciously and that might have an impact or influence the way campaigning takes place. So I think it is a distinction without a real difference. Mr Sadasivan thinks that by their influences they may impact the electorate in such a way that it would affect the fundamental basis for the cooling-off period. I beg to disagree. I think having a responsible media that reports objectively, even on Cooling-Off day – as we do have now on Polling Day without too many problems – is perfectly acceptable. And remember that personal communications – communications of one's viewpoints – as long as it does not amount to election advertising by other parties is not prohibited. Not on the Internet, not anywhere else, as long as it does not amount to election advertising. So there is no reason to go further and specifically prohibit the media.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. First, I would like to make a comment on the remarks by Nominated Member Calvin Cheng. I find it quite ironic that someone who came into this august Chamber

Column: 292

through an interview can actually attack the NCMP scheme in such strong terms.

Sir, next, I would like to move on to comments made by the Minister or comments not made by the Minister in his clarification speech. First, I have not heard from the Minister what is even more fundamental: why after all these years of conducting elections without a cooling-off period, the PAP sees a need to introduce one, after all these years? I do not think there has been any convincing reason given to Singaporeans why there has to be a change after all these years.

Next, with regard to what the Prime Minister said last December, the Minister earlier sought to explain the comment about the rationality but to sum up what the Prime Minister actually said is we need a cooling-off period now because without that, there will be irrational voters at the polls. So, I do not think that I have ascribed to him anything which he has not meant. That was the implication of what he said.

Secondly, Sir, as regards unrest, the Prime Minister did mention that as one of the reasons in December and the Minister also repeated a fear of unrest as one of the grounds to have this, and earlier he cited an incident at the SDA rally, but I find that a bit of a red herring because how does having a cooling-off period the next day help with an incident at a rally? I do not see the connect of that argument.

Next, the Minister suggests that my attempt to distinguish the practices in other jurisdictions is not valid. Let me clarify that if the Minister does not understand. First, the length of the campaign period matters because, in some of those countries mentioned, the campaign period goes on for 20 days, 56 days, there could be an issue of voter overload or voter fatigue. In our system, it is only nine days, so the length of the

Column: 293

campaign period does have an implication on voter psyche in that sense.

Next, he has not explained why the Government use Australia as an example. In my speech earlier, I mentioned that, according to what my Party has researched, the reason is to prevent richer parties from buying up broadcast time. In fact, during the Australian Federal elections there is no ban on Internet campaigning, and so on. So, is the Government using that comparison fairly?

Next, the Minister mentions that we should not look at abuses in other countries as a concern. But I think we should because we should look at the experience of other countries to see how campaign silences have worked. And, Sir, while I do not know what is going to happen at the next election, I do recall what happened in past elections. TV footages of so called "mistakes" by Opposition being repeated on the air over and over again. I do not know whether this will happen the next time but the point is that the risk is there and we are not convinced that the cooling-off period is in the national interest and, for these reasons, we will oppose it.

Mr Shanmugam: Let me take the first point which is Ms Sylvia Lim's question: why after all these years do we need to have a cooling-off period? That gets a little bit like a school-boy debate. She says, why now? So I ask her, why not now? So why not we speak about the principle? Does it make sense or does it not make sense? We are making a whole series of other changes. We are also increasing the number of NCMPs, we are making the NMP scheme permanent. Does anybody ask, why now? As we move along with the system and as we work the system and as our people and our system become more mature, we put in place what we believe is necessary to

Column: 294

make the system even better. If we had all the right answers right from the beginning, then we will be different kinds of geniuses. But let us not get into a debating technique. Let us deal with principles, policies and objective reasons why the Workers' Party opposes this point.

Now, Ms Lim referred to what the Prime Minister had said, and she says after she heard me quote what he said, it still implies to her that he suggested that Singaporeans were irrational. I think I do not need to take that debate further, leave it to the House and people to judge whether that is indeed what the Prime Minister had suggested.

As regards what happened at the SDA rally, she said she does not understand why that necessitates a Cooling-Off day because that event happened at a rally. Surely, the broader point is this: that elections are periods of heightened tensions and when you have those heightened tensions, the risk of trouble, the risk of a riot increases. No one can say for certain it will happen; no one can say for certain it will not happen. But what we can certainly say, and I think what Ms Lim cannot deny is that the risk increases and having a day when everybody cools off reduces the risk.

I am putting the point across in those terms, not higher or lower. I do not think it is really arguable to the contrary.

The fourth point she made was on the length of campaign. She said in other countries, 20 days of campaigning, at the end of which there is voter fatigue, voter-overload and therefore, it is understandable why you need a period of campaign silence. Not quite sure that point cuts against having a Cooling-Off day after nine days. The point is this, various countries practise cooling-off periods. They have not just a single rationale but there were a number of reasons for it. We look at these and we

Column: 295

look at our own experiences and we come to the conclusion that it makes sense for us in our context for these reasons. And in the course of it, we also point out that we are not alone in this, there are others who have similar sorts of principles when they work out some system of electoral democracy.

And, I come back to the basic point. Various arguments are made, points are put forward. One additional day for people to think over these arguments. I am still waiting after all these exchanges to hear from the Workers' Party as to why that is wrong.

Sir, really, I think I have dealt with the points that need to be dealt with.

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. – [Mr Shanmugam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It has been a long debate.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 5.36 pm until 5.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.45 pm

Column: 295

[

Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair: ]