CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

5.02 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, when this Bill was introduced in the House, I explained that it would amend the Constitution in two respects. First, it would set out a new Part relating solely to the Judiciary. Second, it would set up the Presidential Council whose creation was recommended by the Constitutional Commission on minority rights.

Six written representations were received by the Select Committee and accepted as being relevant. These are annexed to the Committee's Report as Appendix II. Members will note that these representations were made only in respect of the second part of the Bill, namely, the Presidential Council. Oral evidence was heard by the Committee in respect of one representation.

No major amendments have been recommended by the Select Committee. In respect of the first part, Article 52D has been redrafted because it was thought that the requirement that one must be a citizen before he can be appointed a Judge of the High Court may exclude otherwise suitable candidates. The other change is the insertion of clause (10) to Article 52F wherein it is provided that the President may, in his discretion, grant leave to the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the High Court.

The second part of the Bill sets out more radical provisions and only one minor amendment thereto has been recommended -- a purely drafting amendment to Article 81M (5).

Members will recall that the Constitutional Commission on minority rights had recommended the creation of the Presidential Council and that Government had accepted this recommendation. The main function of this Council would be to offer such assistance by way of counsel and advice upon legislation, including subsidiary legislation, that might have provisions which conflict with fundamental rights and liberties of minority interests in the State. It is hoped, as well, that the Council would provide the Government or Parliament with such advice as may be sought from it, on any matter relating to the safeguarding of rights or liberties belonging to certain sections of our community, whether they relate to racial, religious or other matters. While recognising its usefulness, the Government has also provided such measures in the Bill as to ensure the legislative supremacy of Parliament. We have endowed the Council with the authority and status to make its views known and felt on all those matters I have just referred to. So it is, Sir, that the Council can, in regard to what it considers to be differentiating measures, cause a reconsideration of such provisions in any proposed law or indeed any existing law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question proposed.

Mr P. Selvadurai: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that the Presidential Council to be set up does its work with honour and responsibility and not become a centre of reaction. It is to be hoped that its contribution would always be directed towards the consolidation and not the disruption and weakening of the State. I cannot help feeling, however, that some of the curious features in this amendment Bill would add a few more legal conundrums to the as yet unresolved problem posed by Articles 52 and 90 of the Constitution.

It is also questionable if the two-thirds majority in Parliament needed to overcome a report by the Council that a proposed piece of legislation is a differentiating measure or otherwise inconsistent with the fundamental liberties of the subject could not be negatived and overcome by the device of introducing a constitutional amendment in Parliament requiring only a bare majority under Article 90, Rule 1. Further, subsidiary legislation characterised by the Council as a differentiating measure or otherwise inconsistent with the fundamental liberties of the subject could also remain in the statute book as enforceable law for six months before appropriate measures of revocation are taken. I hope, however, that it is not too much to expect that more careful and elegant drafting would be a feature of the new Constitution that we are to have in due course.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. I wish to touch upon the second part of the Bill, namely, the Presidential Council and matters related thereto. When the Bill was read a Second time in Parliament, I remember I made a statement supporting the setting up of the Presidential Council. In my opinion, I regard it as the second most progressive measure ever taken by Parliament in the history of our parliamentary democracy. The Select Committee took into consideration various matters, including procedural, relating to the Presidential Council. The Government is to be praised for exercising care in the introduction of this Bill and its passage through all its stages. For instance, there is a provision stipulating that members of the Council should be people above 35 years of age. This will enable people who are mature and knowledgeable to be appointed as members. The Bill also provides that people of unsound mind shall be disqualified for appointment as members of the Council. These provisions are very appropriate.

The Select Committee also gave careful consideration to the various details in the Bill. The Presidential Council's main function is to see that there is no discriminatory measure in all our legislation against the minority groups. In this way, various opinions and views can be advanced so that the Government can take a judicious stand in its policies for the people's benefit. In this respect, the Government has set up community centres and citizens' consultative committees throughout the Republic to look after the interest of the people of Singapore, and also to assess their views and opinions so as to help the Government in the implementation of its policies. We all know that in dictatorial countries, the authorities do not like freedom of expression for the people. They would like to shut them up. But this is not a judicious policy. There is a Chinese saying that it is more difficult to shut up the people than to stop the flow of a river. This is something that cannot be controlled. We must develop the spirit of parliamentary democracy. In this respect, the setting up of the Presidential Council will afford an opportunity for people who have distinguished themselves in public service or attained eminence in their respective walks of life to contribute their part in nation-building for the benefit of the people.

As regards the appointment of members of the Council, I would like to make some suggestions. First, the Council should be composed of representatives of various races in various walks of life. Second, the members of the Council should come from the four streams of education. They should not come from only one stream of education. As we are implementing the policy of multi-lingualism, the Council should conduct its proceedings in the four official languages.

Finally, can the Minister say when this Presidential Council will be set up? Two or three years have elapsed since the setting up of the Constitutional Commission. As ours is an efficient government, every kind of work should be efficiently carried out. The people of Singapore would like to know when the Presidential Council can be set up.

Sir, I support this Bill.

5.20 p.m.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the speech of the Member for Sembawang, I feel that certain parts of his speech are worth listening to. For instance, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill represents a symbolic step in Parliament. But he has not said why it is so. If we look up the political history of Singapore, we can see that there is a great difference in the present Constitution of Singapore compared to the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958. From there we can see where we have progressed.

This Bill has been introduced in the House together with the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. The Constitution (Amendment) Bill is on constitutional matters and the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill is on judicial matters. With their passage, we can see that we have progressed constitutionally as well as in criminal procedural law.

When we debated the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill yesterday, we heard that there was a person who held a public rally at Fullerton Square against the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Bukit Merah has deviated in his speech on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. He is referring to the rally held at Fullerton Square which has no relationship at all with the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Sembawang must appreciate that I am listening to the Member for Bukit Merah in the spirit of the season. Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): Perhaps the Member for Sembawang is too impatient. I was about to refer to the Bill now before the House. Just now I was talking about a certain person who held a public rally at Fullerton Square against the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. But we have not seen anybody holding a public rally against the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. Perhaps there is an explanation in that not many people are interested in the setting up of the Presidential Council. There is another view that this is a democratic process which is easily understood by all people and that there need not be any hue and cry against it. Furthermore, the Bill would be able to present a kind of democratic spirit. This is an honour that Parliament has achieved. However, without the setting up of the Presidential Council, it does not mean that our Constitution is not democratic or up to date. The point is that with the introduction of the Bill, our Constitution can cope with more comprehensive matters and in wider scope touching on the interest of minority groups.

Since Singapore is multi-racial, it is very necessary to look after the interests and needs of the minority groups. Article 89 (1) of the Constitution of Singapore is a provision relating to the rights of the minorities. Even before we achieved our present stage of progress in our Constitution, the Government had already taken care of the welfare and interest of the minorities. With this amendment Bill, we can improve the provisions of the Constitution so as to look after their interests better. The Presidential Council can assess opinions and views from various quarters and put their heads together to consider any legislation which might be a discriminating measure. This is in keeping with our democratic practice. This will cut down any possibility of dictatorial measures in legislation. In this context, I must say that the Bill and its provisions are very appropriate at this time.

Sir, I support this Bill.

5.28 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may first deal with the Member for Sembawang. He wants to know when the Presidential Council will be set up. The answer is next year. How early next year I do not know. It takes a lot of administrative work to get such a Council on to its feet. But perhaps the Member himself is anxious to get on the Council.

The Member for Bukit Panjang questioned whether the provision in Article 81K (6) (c) of the Bill is not inconsistent with or illogical when compared with the present Article 90 of our Constitution relating to constitutional amendments. He also referred to Article 52 which says:

'Any law enacted by the Legislature after the coming into operation of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.'

Article 90 (1) provides that:

'The provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature.'

Sir, as the law now stands, the Constitution may be amended by a simple majority, as laid down in Article 90. But Article 81K clause (6) (c) of the Bill requires a two-thirds majority in order to overcome any adverse opinion of the Council to the effect that a provision in the proposed law is a differentiating measure inconsistent with the fundamental liberties of the subjects. Members will agree that it is only but right that we should have this provision in order that Parliament may not, without such a majority, abrogate these fundamental liberties if, in the opinion of the Council, a Bill would have such ill effects. Any suggestion that the requirement in Article 81K clause (6) (c) might be overcome by a withdrawal and re-submission of such a proposed measure as the Constitution (Amendment) Bill would be quite incorrect. Such a Constitution (Amendment) Bill would again have to obtain the clearance of the Presidential Council so that any such Bill which in the opinion of the Council adversely affects fundamental rights or liberties may not be passed by Parliament without a two-thirds majority. There is really nothing inconsistent with the constitutional amendment provisions. The effects of the particular clause would be to ensure further the protection of these fundamental rights or liberties.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister some questions and would also like him to clarify certain points.

Mr Speaker: The Minister has spoken in reply.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): There were some questions which were not replied to. Can I ask him to clarify?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the two questions I mentioned just now. The first question relates to the appointment of members of the Presidential Council. Can the Minister assure the House that the members of the Council will include people from various races and all walks of life, and also from all the streams of education?

Mr Barker: Sir, if the Member for Sembawang had taken the trouble to read the Report of the Select Committee, he would not have to ask me these questions. These matters were raised in representations to the Select Committee and the Committee's Report is before the House.

I do not appoint members of the Presidential Council, but certainly the Member's views will be taken into account. It is a great pity, after having heard him today, that we did not appoint him to the Select Committee.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): The Member for Sembawang cannot read English! You have to excuse him.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.