CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.54 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to amend the Constitution in order to ensure that Bills affecting "the defence or security of Singapore or which relate to public safety, peace or good order in Singapore" can be introduced into this House and made law without the need of further scrutiny by the Presidential Council.

As the law now stands, Money Bills (as defined by the Constitution) and Bills certified as urgent by the Prime Minister may be made law without prior consideration thereof by the Council. In respect of Money Bills, provisions in the Constitution itself exclude their consideration by the Council. Bills certified as urgent by the Prime Minister are, after their having been made law, referred to the Council for its opinion.

Hon. Members may therefore ask why the need for this amendment. Recently the Presidential Council considered the Enlistment Bill (Bill No. 17/70). I understand that among other arguments against some of the provisions, there was one that Ministerial discretion was so wide as to be possible of discrimination. In this case, a majority of the Council upheld an interpretation of the legislation which did not cause the Bill to be referred back to the House.

But it brought home to the Government the realisation that it could have been extremely difficult to explain, either to the Presidential Council, or in this House, sensitive issues as to why exemption or deferment of call-up for any person or group of persons would not be in the national interests. On matters of defence or security, there are times when a Minister cannot give his reasons. For example, a person aged 18, otherwise fit and eligible, might have to be left out of the armed forces because he is known to have pro-Communist or other extremist tendencies, or that he comes from such a family.

We had envisaged these teething problems when the Presidential Council Act was passed. When the President formally swore in members of the Council, he had this to say:

`From the experience of the workings of your Council and of any teething problems that may arise, amendments to the law governing the Presidential Council may be necessary.'

This has been found to be the case in a Bill relating to defence and security.

Normally it would have been the President who would certify such a Bill. But as the Presidential Council advises the President, it has been thought more appropriate that the Prime Minister should so certify.

Perhaps in conclusion, Sir, it may be useful if I were to recall what was said in this House when the principle of a Presidential Council was agreed to, namely, that this Council cannot limit the sovereignty of Parliament. It is not a supra-Parliamentary body overseeing this Parliament. Only the Courts can interpret what has been legislated, and only the electorate can bring about a change in the legislative policies of this Parliament.

Sir, I beg to move.

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 Barker].

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