LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.43 a.m.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come up before this House. It is drafted primarily to implement those of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections which have been accepted by Government. Although the Report itself was not debated by this Assembly, it formed the basis of a debate on a motion by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar at the last Assembly sitting. It was gratifying to note then that whilst some speakers criticised the Report in varying degrees, none criticised the recommendations of the Report.

For ten years now, Sir, the people of Singapore have had experience of elections, and it has become apparent, during the course of these experiences, that as the years go by certain unimaginable and disruptive forces have crept into the machinery of elections. On the one hand, you have the element of corruption, thuggery and intimidation; on the other, the insidious infiltration into our lawful political arena of Communism and Communist tactics. Though the Bill, as drafted, is designed to wipe out the former, it would inevitably lead to a lessening of the threat of the latter, for Communism cannot thrive without thuggery and intimidation.

Sir, the question before this House and before the people of Singapore is simple: Do we want clean elections or not? It is in our hands to decide, for what we decide today will surely affect the future of Singapore and the future of our children. We certainly do not want their fate to be tossed about from one gang boss to another; still less do we want their future to be left in the hands of corrupt politicians.

This Bill will help to bring about a change for the better. There are actually two parts to it, although they are not so identified.

The first are amendments not connected with the Elias Report, but which Government feels should be included in the legislation for reasons which I shall enumerate.

Clause 2 of the Bill changes the date from which residence in Singapore is to be counted for the purpose of preparing registers of electors from 1st April to 1st February. This follows a similar change which has been made to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance and makes it easier for those doing the work of compiling to publish both registers about the same time.

Clauses 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill remove the mandatory provisions of the Ordinance which require the publication in newspapers of various election notices. The publication of the notices in the form required by the Ordinance in newspapers has entailed heavy costs in advertisement charges. It is intended, Sir, that for the future a short advertisement will be inserted in the newspapers which will refer to the detailed notices in the Gazette.

Clause 5 of the Bill will make it unnecessary to undertake a revision of the register of electors in 1958 or in any year in which the register is newly prepared.

Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 57 of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, to make it clear that although prosecutions for corrupt practices can only be instituted with the sanction of the Attorney-General, the police may, nevertheless, take immediate action to investigate any alleged corrupt practice or to prevent the continuance of any corrupt practice.

This, Sir, is the first part of the Bill.

The second part of the Bill deals primarily with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Clause 11 of the Bill seeks to expand and simplify the provision regarding "treating". It implements the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry that the offence of treating should be extended to include the provision of food, drink, refreshment, cigarettes or entertainment to any person for the purpose of inducing such person to attend or remain at an election meeting.

Clause 12 of the Bill implements the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry that there should be added to the several forms of bribery under section 56 of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, a provision making it an offence for any person to bribe any other person who is assisting or has promised to assist a candidate at an election in order to induce him not to assist that candidate.

Clause 16 of the Bill prohibits the use of motor vehicles for conveying voters to the poll. This implements the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as contained in paragraph 93 of their Report. In this connection, it will be necessary to provide more polling stations so that voters will not be compelled to walk long distances to cast their votes, particularly in the rural areas.

Clause 17 of the Bill implements the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry that on Polling Day no vehicle should be permitted to carry or display anything (including any rosette or favour) which would indicate connection with any candidate or his political Party. In order to make the provisions effective, a contravention of them is made seizable.

Clause 18 adds five new sections. The first section prohibits canvassing on Polling Day to implement the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry in paragraph 90 of their Report. The second section prohibits, inter alia, (a) the checking of names of persons entering polling stations, and (b) loitering within 200 yards of any polling station. These provisions implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in paragraphs 98 and 99 of their Report. The third section defines election activity and prohibits any person under 21 years of age conducting any election activity. It also implements the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry that no person should be allowed to conduct an election activity on behalf of a candidate without being appointed in writing to do so by the candidate and that the Commissioner of Police may require the cancellation of any authority given to a person by a candidate.

The fourth section provides that an assembly of five or more persons whose intention is to disrupt an election meeting shall be an unlawful assembly. The fifth section makes it a seizable offence to operate a loudspeaker so as to interfere with the election meeting or maliciously to deface election posters. These two sections implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in paragraph 106 of their Report.

There is, however, one major and controversial recommendation which is not included in the Bill, and that is the question of compulsory voting. Various views have been expressed on this issue and although the Bill does not include this recommendation, Government does not wish to prevent it from being aired in this Assembly, nor does it wish to bind itself for the time being without properly sounding public opinion and weighing its pros and cons.

Sir, it is Government's intention to commit the Bill to a Select Committee, and at the appropriate time I shall beg leave to move the motion. I have already given notice of two minor amendments in clauses 11 and 17 which will be made in Committee, but there is, however, one other amendment which Government will introduce at the Committee stage in connection with clause 18 of the Bill, making the new clause 73c subsections (1) and (2) of the Principal Ordinance seizable.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

11.54 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill marks a great change in the election system of this country. In the past we have had elections of a nature where people or supporters of the candidates crowded around the polling stations. This Bill will also give a chance to those who wish to stand for election but who cannot afford heavy expenses. Also with the introduction of this Bill there will be no more allegations of secret society activities on election day.

The Minister has said that this Bill is framed in two parts. One part, according to the explanatory statement, is that this Bill is designed primarily to amend the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, in order to implement certain recommendations of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections. The second part is "Another change is the removal of mandatory nature of provisions requiring the publication in newspapers of various election notices."

Sir, according to clauses 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, they seek to do away with advertisements in any local newspaper. This, I understand, is for the purpose of economy. The Minister, when introducing this Bill, has said that in the past the Government has entailed heavy advertisement costs. If this Bill becomes law, Sir, then the notices will only appear in the Gazette and not in the local newspapers. May I know from the Minister, Sir, how many people in Singapore actually read the Gazette or subscribe to the Gazette? Except for Government departments and a few big firms which actually subscribe to the Gazette, I am quite sure that many people will be deprived of the opportunity to know about the notices of elections. A large majority of the public do not even know where to get the Gazette. Then how can they be aware of notices of elections? If the present practice is discontinued, Sir, the public will be deprived of the opportunity of claiming their names on the electoral registers if their names have been omitted. It will also deprive those who would like to object to some names that appear on the registers of an opportunity to do so. According to the Budget, the Government spends huge sums of money every year. By doing away with advertisements in the local newspapers, the saving effected is very small, and if the Government thinks that it is essential, then it is penny wise and pound foolish. For the benefit of the general public, Sir, I still say that advertisements should appear in the newspapers and they should be widely publicised. Instead of the term as contained in the Bill - "in one or more newspapers" - I would suggest that it should be amended to read "in all leading English and vernacular daily newspapers".

Coming to the implementation of the recommendations made by the Elias Commission, it is surprising to note that the Government is only taking into consideration certain recommendations. Why only certain recommendations? When the Elias Commission framed their recommendations, they took the whole aspect of the election machinery into consideration and not a part of it. For instance, Sir, clause 16 of the Bill is a new provision by adding section 66A after section 66 of the principal Ordinance. This section prohibits the use of motor vehicles on election day.

Clause 18 of the Bill seeks to prohibit canvassing on polling day. I take it this is to prevent secret society activities on election day. I agree that these recommendations or amendments are good, but can they be considered adequate? The framing of this Bill will only allow a certain section of the public to take part in election activities - may I say, professional politicians only?

Sir, the Minister has said that our experience of elections goes back to 1948 - 10 years ago. We should be considered an advanced country where elections are concerned. But there are still people in Singapore who do not want to be dragged into a political warfare. Normally a friend of a candidate will willingly offer his car or his assistance during an election campaign; but if this Bill is passed, then such an offer of a car or assistance will be an offence. According to clause 18, that friend will have to be registered before he can help a candidate during election day or during the election campaign. This is a most cumbersome procedure, Sir. As supporters of a candidate will now be subject to screening by the police if they offer their assistance to him, it is then up to the police to say whether or not the supporters can take part in the election campaign. Furthermore, people with a high sense of responsibility - and therefore good citizens of Singapore - will no longer discuss openly the good or bad points of a candidate of a certain political Party. The interpretation of the new sections 73A, 73B and 73C in clause 18 may only be a technical point in the eyes of the Government, but the man in the street does not understand what the legislation is and he does not wish to be involved in any political complications because he is afraid of committing an offence under these sections in clause 18. There would then be very few people who would be prepared to come forward to assist a candidate during his election campaign. So when this Bill becomes law, it will mean that voters will have to go to the polls voluntarily either in their own transport, if they have it, or, if they have not, walk there. It is encouraging to note that the Minister is prepared to have more polling stations, especially in the rural areas, so that people will have only a very short distance to walk.

On the face of it, the amendments appear to be good and I am sure every Member in this House will support them, having regard to the recent Kallang by-election. But does the Government visualise the percentage of voters who will go to the polls? Every voter will have to make up his own mind voluntarily that he should go to the polls and exercise his right to vote. I recall to this House, Sir, what happened at the Kallang by-election. The Government claimed to have a record poll at this by-election, and it was only slightly above 50 per cent. The political Parties and their candidates took great pains to persuade people to go to the polls. Had it not been for this. I am sure the percentage of voters at this by-election would have been much lower.

I must also give credit to the Department of Information Services during the Kallang by-election. A van toured the division every evening with neon lights appealing to the people to go to the polls and telling them that they must exercise their franchise right. Yet in spite of all this, only slightly over 50 per cent of the voters, as I have said, voted. Without all this work by the Government, the percentage might have been 20 or 30 per cent only.

With the introduction of this Bill, Sir, there will be no more cars roaming about the streets with badges, posters or symbols. There will be no more canvassing by supporters and, what is more important, no more annoyance will be caused to the voters by supporters coming to their doors every half-hour or 15 minutes.

If Government wants to implement the Elias Commission's recommendations, why not take all of them into consideration rather than some of them? I am glad that the Government is prepared to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. If it were not prepared to do so, I would have done it. My reason for wishing this Bill to go to a Select Committee is so that more amendments could be introduced to implement adequately the recommendations of the Elias Commission. At the Committee stage I hope the Government will also consider the point I have raised - that advertisements of notices of election should appear in all English and vernacular daily newspapers.

12.04 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt dismayed after having listened to the mover of this motion, but after hearing the flow of words from the Member for Queenstown, I have forgotten my dismay. Sir, the pious and sanctimonious incantation of democracy, in order to rig election laws for the benefit of those who hope that they will win the next election, leaves me aghast. We are told that the whole purpose of these amendments to the Ordinance is to have clean and honest elections so that clean and honest men would be elected to this Assembly, and that they have done no more than just adopt what the Elias Commission recommended.

In the first place, Sir, the recommendations that were made were inter-related. One of the recommendations said, "Polling day a public holiday". Another said compulsory voting, no canvassing. Sir, everybody knows that a public holiday will increase the votes of the candidate who has the support of the working class. Everybody knows that at every election the workers jam the polling booths between half-past six and eight p.m. Therefore we welcomed the recommendation to make polling day a public holiday. That is part of the recommendation of the Report, but I am sorry to see that the Labour Front, which professes to be a Labour party and therefore should hope to get the support of the working class, has decided not to make polling day a public holiday, although it is part of the recommendations.

We were told that the Government is considering the question of compulsory voting. Let us be honest about it. Let us not be hypocritical. For about two months we were reading in the newspapers every day about the hue and cry from the Chief Minister being actively opposed by his Deputy Chief Minister, both of whom were actively opposed by the ex-Chief Minister, and they were all running around in excited circles. We took a completely disinterested and dispassionate view and said, "Come what may, we will still win, whether you have compulsory voting or not." Everybody now knows that compulsory voting is off, because the Deputy Chief Minister believes that if there is compulsory voting, there will be very few areas where U.M.N.O. supporters and the Malays will outnumber everybody else and therefore win. Therefore he is anti-compulsory voting. And therefore the Chief Minister is in a bit of a difficulty, because he may be left without sufficient Members to form a government. All this in the name of democracy!

Sir, the recommendation not to have canvassing on polling day is tied up with compulsory voting. If you have compulsory voting, then it is unnecessary to canvass. But, of course, because they do not expect to be able to bear again the enormous expenditure of men, money and materials which was put in at Kallang, it is better not to have canvassing on polling day. It is a very expensive and a very exhausting process. Particularly if one could also throughout the whole election, block all those under 21 - presumably the governing Parties do not expect to get anybody under 21 to work for them. They do not expect to be able to muster sufficient people to canvass votes for them - therefore nobody under 21 should participate in election activities. Therefore no canvassing on polling day. But no compulsory voting, because that would work adversely against the interests of the ruling Parties

Sir, when this Bill was first published, I informed one of my Branch Committee members that it is intended that in future nobody under 21 could participate in election activities. He said to me, "How can that be? People over the age of 18 are asked to take a gun to do national service in defence of Queen and country, and you say they cannot participate in election activities? They are prepared to send them to the front-line in order that they may be shot, to defend politicians as their institutions, but they are not allowed to participate in election activities?" Further, is this 21-year limit recommended in the Elias Report? Who thought it out?

Sir, regarding the screening of election workers, it is a good and reasonable suggestion. Anybody with a secret society record, with a card in the Criminal Records Office - and this Office keeps a card of those suspected of being secret society gangsters, with pictures and ten thumb-prints - should be debarred. But clause 18, section 73C (4) says:

"A candidate or election agent shall if so required by the Commissioner of Police withdraw and deliver to the Returning Officer the written authority given by him to any person who is stated by the Commissioner of Police to be a person in respect of whom an order has been made under subsection (4) of section 22 of the Societies Ordinance for the photograph and finger impressions of such person to be taken." Sir, we saw - and this is about 17 days ago - Assistant Ministers running around with gangsters in Kallang and here we have this pious provision to say that it shall all be illegal. We are asked to accept with equanimity and calm the suggestion that the Commissioner of Police can just say no to any election worker, when we know that the 24 Gang was all massed on behalf of the Labour Front at Kallang! Sir, first of all, in principle, we object to this procedure of registering, because it is an infringement of the democratic rights. If I choose to canvass for a person, if I speak to another friend and say, "Vote for that person", that is an election activity. And you cannot curb that. The definition of "election activity" in section 73C (5) of clause 18 reads:

'For the purposes of this section "election activity" includes any activity which is done for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election other than clerical work wholly performed within enclosed premises.'

I visit friend X in Rayman Avenue and ask him to vote for the P.A.P., because it is an honest and clean Party, and do not vote for the Labour Front, because I think they do not know where they are going anyway, and because they are going to dissolve themselves. And I am committing an offence. What is the purpose of all this? Has the Government seriously considered the effect of section 73C (5)? On principle, we object to it. In practice, we say that what is going to happen is that all the gangsters will be allowed to have the authority to help certain Parties, and all the good and honest men may be suspected of being gangsters because they are going to help the Opposition Parties.

In the Select Committee to which this Bill is going to be committed, we will have certain amendments to make as to, firstly, the feasibility of introducing this scheme; secondly, if it is to be introduced for the purpose of eliminating secret society gangsters - and if that is the manifest and specific intention of the Government and no other - then we can work out a provision whereby secret society gangsters, although suspected to be members of such gangs by the Registrar of Societies, can be eliminated altogether. But there should be no infringement on the right of a private citizen to canvass, to denounce, or to bring about a change in government by bringing about the non-election of any of the candidates of a party that he dislikes. In any case, such powers cannot be vested in the Commissioner of Police. They must be subject to a judicial authority reviewing his actions and either approving or negating them.

Sir, on the question of transport. It is true that we suggested two years ago that there should be a restriction on the use of cars. Because the Government Parties and the Liberal-Socialists then believed that as they could muster more cars they could have more advantage out of this factor, our proposal was rejected. The consequent result is that every polling day sees a motorcade in every constituency. Sir, in Kallang I do not imagine there were less than 1,000 cars milling around a very small area. According to results, not more than 8,000 people went to the polls. According to our analysis, at each polling station no more than 4,000 voters were carried there in cars. In other words, 4,000 people went by themselves and voted. In case the Labour Front are wondering how they lost, let me tell them that the people walked there, slipped through the polling station gates and voted against them, despite all the high pressure tactics of using cars and gangsters. We think clause 16 - an amendment to add section 66A (2) - is inadequate. It reads:

"Nothing in this section shall prevent any person employing a motor vehicle for the purpose of conveying to or from the poll himself or any member of the same household or borrowing a motor vehicle from a member of the same household to be employed for that purpose."

Sir, the English law on this point has been tested for quite a long time, and it says that nobody can give anybody a lift, be he a member of the same household or otherwise. If we allow this to go in, then we will have a lot of cars running around, or which have been borrowed, by members of the same household. It may well be that the provision of public transport along some of the main roads in a constituency could be a solution to all the difficulties over transport. In the rural areas - let us face the facts - the position is, of course, difficult unless one puts up many more polling booths than are contemplated at present. The difficulty could be overcome by providing public transport along main roads, but there is then the administrative difficulty of seeing that such transport is confined only to voters for the purpose of going to and from the polling stations. But if we are to ban transport altogether, then it must be an effective and conclusive ban. It cannot be one with a loophole which allows for members of a household. "Members of a household" can mean anything - because you can have a house which has a hundred persons living in it, and they are all members of the same household.

Lastly, Sir, I have this to add to my strictures on the conduct of the Government in this Bill. Clean elections can only be brought about if the main political Parties are clean. I will give an illustration of this. The days of the Independents are over and those who have not got a Party had better look around quickly for one. When one Party adopts tactics which do not abide by the Queensbury Rules, so to speak, the other Party must either counter them or succumb. For instance, if one Party puts up a large number of people outside the polling station for the purposes of:

(1) Morale, and

(2) Gentle persuasion, albeit bordering on intimidation,

the other Party is compelled to do likewise. When therefore, for the purposes of avoiding an incident in the Kallang by-election, we invited all Parties voluntarily to agree not to have canvassing within a hundred yards of any polling station, great reluctance was shown from the Labour Front. The ex-Chief Minister, for his own selfish motives, because his Workers Party probably had nobody to put outside the polling stations - I think he has only got a gang named 304 now - cornered his successor in a public interview, into agreeing to this, and yet, despite that agreement, the following day at Rayman School up to half-past one we saw masses -

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Of P.A.P.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - of young men wearing Labour Front badges, Hawaiian shirts and drainpipe trousers - we have pictures to prove it too - and because it could not be stopped, at 2 o'clock we gave orders to our workers. And we have workers who are bigger chaps, strapping people, man for man, S.T.C. bus conductors and drivers - not gangsters. The result was to neutralise the position. Let them remember this: that every dirty tactic and every bit of foul play can be countered by a Party which has an organisation and has facilities to back the resources of large masses of people in the unions. If you have that, then you have much more resources than if you have money to buy gangsters, because, after all, a man who is paid to do a job is not going to exert himself more than what is necessary to earn the money. But if a man comes into the field because he feels it to be his duty, and because he wants to return a favour done for him and his union, then he is going to go out and do his level best to see that his side wins. If the Government really wants to see a clean election, then, first of all, let us have clean and fair play during the whole course of the election. Let us discuss these amendments not with the purpose of trying to cripple another Party, but with the purpose of getting the gangsters and other undesirable elements out of it. But so long as we see in this Bill an intention to take some advantage and cripple the other side, we shall fight it.

Mr Speaker: I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.24 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.