SINGAPORE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.35 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, the Registration Officer is required to complete the revision of the registers of electors on or before the 15th day of September or such later date in that year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette. The revision for the year 1963 was not completed before 15th September, and in accordance with the provision of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Ordinance, the date of completion has been extended to 31st December, 1963. However, the revision cannot be completed before April 1964, and the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the extension of time for the revision until 30th April, 1964.

There are two reasons for the delay in the completion of the revision of the registers. The first is the delay in the completion of the 1962 revision of the registers of electors. This revision was completed only in June 1963, and consequently work on the 1963 revision could not be commenced early in the year as usual. The second reason for the delay was the holding of the general election in September 1963. The staff who would ordinarily have been engaged in the revision of the registers were employed in the preparations for and conduct of the election.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the clauses in this amending Bill are meant to extend the time for the revision of the electoral registers to April 1964 or to a day appointed by the Minister. According to the Elections Ordinance, the electoral registers should be completed by 15th of September of that year. Therefore, the revision of the Registers of Electors should be completed this year. Why has there been such a delay? Why has the revision of the registers not been completed in time?

Just now the Deputy Prime Minister gave two reasons for the delay. One of the reasons was the election in September. If you remember correctly, the ex-Minister for Home Affairs has said that the revision of the registers for 1963 commenced in June this year. At the same time, he also said that work had started in March this year. The period from March up to now is nine months. So there were nine months in which to complete the revision of the Registers of Electors. The Government should have completed the revision of these Registers of Electors long ago. The Registers of Electors were exhibited during the snap elections held recently. Lists A and B were exhibited to the public. Those whose names were struck off from the registers of electors could apply for the restoration of their names within two weeks. The registers of electors should have been completed long ago. The work of this revision should not entail any difficulty. In fact, we have a lot of money and we have enough staff. Since the Government have spent a lot of money and effort on the training of youth leadership, why did the Government not provide new staff and funds for the completion of the revision of the electoral registers? We have seen that the revision of these electoral registers has been postponed from time to time. If you remember correctly, there was a similar amendment in the past. There were similar provisions for the extension of the revision of the electoral registers for 1962 from 30th September, 1962, to 30th June, 1963. I would not like to touch on the reason for the delay. In extending the time for the completion of this work, the P.A.P. intended to exclude certain qualified electors from the registers of electors. That is, those who had attained the age of 21 in July 1963 were excluded from the registers of electors. At that time, the P.A.P. intended to hold the general election in 1964. If the revision was completed in June, then those who could vote in the elections will be those whose names appear in the registers of electors for 1962. Thus 50,000 people who had the right to vote in 1962 will not have their names included in the Registers of Electors. In doing so, the P.A.P. did not give the people who did not support the P.A.P. a chance to vote in the elections. The Registers of Electors for 1963 will have to be extended again to 1964. Perhaps the P.A.P. are playing another game in respect of the revision of the Registers of Electors. They want a longer period of time to enable them to include those people who had no right to vote in the general elections. In the recent elections, we heard that many people could not find their names in the registers. By manipulating the registers, the P.A.P. hope to perpetuate their regime.

Another secret which they dare not reveal to the public is this. From the speeches of the P.A.P., we have some hint that the Member for Moulmein would resign her seat to enable her husband to contest in a by-election, so that he could be elected to the Central Parliament, if he was elected. But in order to be a candidate, Mr Devan Nair must have his name entered in the registers. If the registers had been completed in September this year, then the name of Mr Devan Nair would not have appeared in them. Thus, he would not have been able to stand for election next year. But if the P.A.P. extend the time of revision to next year say, April or June, or even later, it will facilitate Mr Devan Nair, who has no qualifications, to stand for election - coming in by the back door. If this is so, then they should be ashamed of what they want to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to remind the House that the one-man-one-vote system should be carried out in a fair, impartial and democratic manner. If it is just for the sake of the P.A.P.'s interests, if they can revise the electoral registers according to their whims and fancies, or to extend the time of revision of the registers, then parliamentary democracy will have no meaning, and is turned into a dictatorship. The one-man-one-vote system has been abused by the P.A.P., that is to say, they make use of this system, through the powers of the State machinery and propaganda machinery, to carry out unreasonable elections. The P.A.P. have been talking of democracy all the time, and so we hope that they do not undermine or destroy democracy.

7.50 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance is to ensure a clean, fair and honest election within the democratic framework. This section compels the Government to have the register ready by the 15th of September each year, or, at the latest, the 31st of December of that particular year.

Now, Sir, we are having this perennial affair appearing so often of the Government's attempt to circumvent section 15 of the Elections Ordinance, so that the electoral register of each year can be delayed for a maximum period of 12 months. If this Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill is passed, the Government can have the 1963 register ready not by 15th of September. 1963, but by the 31st of December, 1964.

Clause 4 of the amendment Bill enables the Government to complete the register in whatever way they like. They can complete it before the 30th of April, 1964, or before the 31st of December, 1964.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the two reasons given by the Deputy Prime Minister are not very convincing. The first reason he gave was that because there was a postponement last year, there has to be a postponement this year. Next year we shall have to postpone again and we will postpone every year. I suggest in that case, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government should be bold, come forward and delete section 15 (1) of the Elections Ordinance, in which case the Government will have the full liberty to complete the electoral register at any time it chooses. They can have the 1963 register completed by 1965, 1966 or 1967. There is no time limit ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Are you suggesting an amendment?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes. Then it will not be so embarrassing, Sir, for the Government to bring up every now and then a Temporary Provisions Bill each year.

Mr Speaker, with this cat and mouse democracy, we see the Government every now and then bringing in Temporary Provisions Ordinances. The second reason given by the Government is not very convincing either, because although the elections were held in September, the Government have completed its first part of the revision - they have asked for claims and objections and returns to be made and these have been done. As far as I know, it will only take a few more months to complete. If the Government is really short of staff in the Printing Office or in the Elections Office - which I doubt very much - it can ask for an extension of one or two months till February or March, but they should not ask for an extension until the 31st of December, 1964.

Mr Speaker, many people give many reasons for the Government's postponement each year. Some people say the Government can juggle with electoral registers by putting in names of people who do not stay in the particular constituencies. Some people say the Government want to postpone certain by-elections, particularly the by-election in Moulmein. Many reasons are given, but I do not know the genuine intentions of the Government in having this type of Temporary Provisions Bill brought up every year in this Assembly.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I think I have to emphasise that the staff in the Elections Department have a backlog of work this year. They had not only to revise the registers for 1962, but, at the same time, they had to do a similar job for 1963. Under normal circumstances, they would probably have completed their task. But, as I have stated earlier, on account of the general elections held in September, the crucial month of the year, most of the staff, who would normally be engaged on this work, were turned towards running the general election itself.

It is not the intention that we should deliberately defer or delay revision of the registers. Human capacity is limited and, therefore, we have to consider this when taking into account when the revision would be completed. In fact, in the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, which the Member for Hong Lim quoted just now, there was a specific clause which provides for any undue delays that might occur in revision.

The Member for Jurong was talking about Mr Devan Nair - I think Mrs Devan Nair was quite frank during the general elections about her standing in Moulmein in place of her husband. It was not a secret at all. It was publicly stated that at a suitable date in the future, she would give way to her husband and when that happens there would, of course, be a by-election in Moulmein. There is no secret about that. That fact was made known during the general elections. It is obvious that if Mr Devan Nair's name is not on the electoral register, no by-election will be held in Moulmein. I do not know why the Member for Jurong is making great play over that, as if it were a secret which we were hiding away from people.

I agree with the Member for Jurong that the system of one-man-one-vote must, as far as possible, be maintained. It is because we have maintained the democratic system of one-man-one-vote, that is why the Barisan Sosialis lost in the Referendum and in the general elections.

As long as we give the opportunity to the people in Singapore to express their support for a candidate or for a political Party by a secret ballot, I do not believe that the Barisan Sosialis will ever win at all. From outward appearances, when the Barisan Sosialis regimented several hundreds of their supporters to attend mass meetings in their campaign during the general elections, one would have thought that they were going to win the general elections. I think the people of Singapore now are too sophisticated to be taken in by such an advertisement. Neither did their attempts at bringing in hundreds of their supporters to certain constituencies during the general elections to canvass for their candidates help them at all. Such intimidation will not work as long as the electorate can express their will in secret by the ballot box.

Finally, may I just dismiss the Member for Hong Lim's insinuation that we are fiddling with the registers so that we can include names of people, who do not exist, in certain constituencies. He should have thought better before he uttered these remarks. There are always petitions which can be made and it will be very foolish for a government, or, for that matter, anybody to try to fiddle with the electoral registers.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Tomorrow, Sir.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.