PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Prime Minister has already referred to this Bill in his earlier comprehensive explanation of the Gpvernment's objectives in ensuring the presence of a minimum number of Opposition Members in Parliament. There has also been a very exhaustive debate stretching over twq days on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill which, inevitably, has also traversed the proposals in this Bill. As a result, therefore, I propose to be brief and avoid repeating the rationale and arguments underlying the proposal. It will suffice to refer only to certain provisions in this Bill with regard to the circumstances and the manner in which the proposed non-constituency Members are to be declared elected.

As regards the method of determining non-constituency Members, Sir, clause 3 introduces a new provision into the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide specifically for non-constituency Members. If no Opposition Member is returned in a General Election, the Returning Officer shall declare elected three non-constituency Members who polled the highest percentage of votes.

If one or two Opposition Members are returned, then the Returning Officer shall, in the same manner, declare elected two or one (as the case may be) of the Opposition candidates in order to make up three Opposition Members in Parliament.

As has been stated by the Prime Minister, it may be necessary to review and appraise this method of electing non-constituency Members in the light of experience gathered over a few years.

Sir, the new proposed section 51A makes it clear that the non-constituency Member must be a member of an Opposition political party, as it is not the intention that independent candidates should become non-constituency Members.

The method of determining non-constituency Members is subject to the proviso that such a non-constituency Member must have, polled at least 15% of the total number of votes (other than rejected votes) polled in the constituency concerned.

Sir, under the Parliamentary Elections Act, a candidate forfeits his deposit if he fails to obtain at least 1/8th of the votes, which is 12 1/2%. Therefore, it is reasonable and justifiable that as a prerequisite to being declared a non-constituency Member, an Opposition candidate must poll at least 15% of the votes in the constituency contested by him.

Sir, it will be recalled that the enabling provision in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which Parliament has just adopted, authorizes, inter alia, Parliament to provide by law for the filling of vacancies of the seats of non-constituency Members where such vacancies are caused otherwise than by a dissolution of Parliament, such as, for instance, by death or by resignation.

Sir, in the Bill before us, no provision is made for the filling of such vacancies, and Government's intention is that, in the event of such a vacancy arising, the seat will remain unfilled.

An argument can be made that, logically, when such a vacancy arises it should be filled by the person who had the next highest percentage of votes. However, such a solution would be problematic if the vacancy arose much later after the General Election, say, two years subsequently or even later. It would be incongruous to give such a seat to a person after such a lapse of time. For the time being, therefore, Government considers it not necessary to provide for the filling of such vacancies.

Provision is made, however, for the situation where any of the three persons returned as non-constituency Members fails to take his seat. This is provided for in the proposed new section 51B.

If such a Member fails to take the Oath of Allegiance at the first or second Sitting of Parliament after the General Election, Parliament will have the discretion, by resolution, to declare his seat vacant and to declare that it be filled by the next succeeding candidate in order of priority depending on percentage of votes polled. The same proviso of having to poll at least 15% of the votes, other than rejected votes, would also apply in this situation.

I should stress that Parliament has a discretion whether it wishes to declare the seat vacant and thus have the seat filled by the next succeeding candidate. It is not under an obligation to do so. This is because Parliament may have good reasons not to so act. For instance, it may conclude that the non-constituency Member has justifiable excuse for not taking the Oath during the first or second Sitting. In such a case, Parliament might refrain from adopting any resolution and permit the non-constituency Member to take the Oath at a future Sitting.

Sir, there are two other minor provisions in the Bill. One is clause 2, which states explicitly that the number of electoral divisions of Singapore will be the total number of the electoral divisions specified in the notification to be made under section 8 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. The other, clause 4, amends section 73(2) of the Act to vary the fees paid for the supply of extracts of documents.

Sir, as the Prime Minister has stated yesterday, there is, of course, no tailor-made constitution for all countries or for all purposes, and we have to devise constitutional provisions designed to meet our own special circumstances.

To illustrate my point, Members may wish to know that Mauritius too has constitutional provisions for eight additional seats which are allocated to candidates who were not returned to represent constituencies. But their system is designed to meet their own problems. Thus, in determining the allocation of these seats in Mauritius, the general principle is to consider the most successful of the un- returned candidates. However, there are complex formulae which require the interests of their different communities, the Hindu, Muslim, Sino-Mauritian communities, to be reflected in the distribution of seats and, furthermore, it is also provided that even defeated candidates of the party in power can be allocated such additional seats. But in Singapore we have devised and presented the present proposals contained in the Bill before us.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to move an amendment to the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move,

That the word "now" in the Question be left out, and to add, at the end of the Question, "on this day six months".

Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may speak on my amendment to this Question.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my view that Parliament may not pass this Bill today as is the intention, I take it, of the Minister moving the Bill. If Parliament were to pass this Bill today, it is my view that Parliament would be doing something in violation of the Constitution. And I am sure it is not the intention that Parliament which is the law-making body of this country which should, above all, observe the laws of this country should do something contrary to the provisions in the Constitution.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, when he moved the amendment to the Constitution, quite rightly said that it was to enable the amendment to the Parliamentary Elections Act. He said it was an enabling move, and of course he is right because any law passed by Parliament must come within the corners of the Constitution. And if any proposed law conflicts with the Constitution, then Parliament may not pass it. That is my point. And I say this in spite of the fact that Parliament has passed the amendment to the Constitution. But, Sir, the Constitution has not been amended despite the passing in this House today of the amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution remains as it was before the amending Bill was introduced in Parliament, and the Constitution will only be amended and the enabling provision will only come into force after the President has given assent to this Bill. So the position today despite Parliament having passed the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill is that the Constitution is as it was yesterday and even this morning.

The Constitution only provides for Parliament to consist of elected Members. There is no provision in the Constitution now, at this time of speaking, for other than elected Members, first-past-the-post elected Members to comprise Parliament. There is no provision in the Constitution, as at this time of speaking, for any addition in this House of Members other than those elected by the electorate.

So it is my view, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that it is premature for the Minister to introduce this Bill. He will have to wait. He will have to wait until the Bill passed by Parliament this afternoon becomes law and becomes part of the Constitution. Then it is in the Constitution that Parliament shall consist of an additional six Members if necessary other than elected Members. But until that is done, Parliament may not in my view pass any legislation because to do that would be to violate the provisions in the Constitution.

I refer the Minister, and I am of course sure he is aware of this, to Article 58(2) of the Constitution. It is clearly spelt out there. Sir, Article 58(2) reads:

'A Bill shall become law on being assented to by the President and such low shall come into operation on the date of its publication in the Gazette or, if it is enacted either in such law or in any other low for the time being in force in Singapore that it shall come into operation on some other date, on that date.'

For the purposes of my amendment, Sir, the operative words are, "A Bill shall become law on being assented to by the President... ". So there it is explicit. It is clear that the passing this afternoon by this House of the amendment to the Constitution does not make it law. It is not the law in Singapore yet that there should be other than elected Members in this House. So I would ask the Minister to seriously consider this. Does he want Parliament to undertake something which is in direct violation of an Article in the Constitution? Is that what his intention is? I hope not. I ask the Minister to consider this very seriously.

I beg to move, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the word, "now" be left out and add at the end of the question, "on this day six months" by which time perhaps we will have the President's assent to the Bill that we have just passed.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I comment on the amendment?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. I will propose the Question first and then you can speak on it.

Question proposed.

Prof. Jayakumar: I think you are quite right, Sir, in assuming that there is no merit in this amendment but nevertheless for the record, I ought to reply to the Member for Anson. He has raised what he thought is a great constitutional issue. I completely oppose the amendment and he should know by now that the Government considers every legal aspect of every one of its moves in Parliament or outside Parliament. This point has been thoroughly considered. The opinion of the Attorney-General's Chambers has been obtained and only after the opinion was obtained was the course of action of having the two Bills taken through this sitting adopted.

He is right in saying that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill does not have the force of law until it is assented. There is no quarrel with that. But that does not mean that, until that is assented to, Parliament cannot consider any other Bill. This Bill, after it has been taken through the Second and Third Readings, also does not have the force of law until it is assented to. Both Bills will be presented for assent as required by the Constitution, and only when all these stages have been completed can the Member for Anson ask, and address himself to, the question whether the provisions of the Constitution have been violated. As I have said, we have taken the opinion from the Attorney-General's Chambers. There is no violation of the Constitution or the Standing Orders in taking this Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill through Second and Third Readings after the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has been taken through its Second and Third Readings as we have just seen. Between the great exposition on constitutional law of the Member for Anson and the learned considered opinion of the Attorney-General's Chambers, I think Members will agree with me that it is more prudent, safer and wiser to rely on the opinions of the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of clarification with the Minister. He quits rightly says that there is no dispute and that even this Bill will not become law until it is assented. But the Minister, however, misses the point. The point is this: that under the present law, nothing, may be done which is contrary to the Constitution. And what is Parliament doing this afternoon? What are you asking Parliament to do? You are asking Parlia- ment here as a body entrusted with the task of making law to pass a law which is directly in conflict with the Constitution. If I may give the Minister an analogy, it is like asking an Executive Officer, a civil servant, to do something which is in conflict with the written law of this country. To say that later on it will be ratified or may be ratified does not cure the defect. You are asking this House to debate and pass a Bill which is in conflict with the Constitution. It is as simple as that.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am no lawyer. But I simply cannot follow the argument advanced by the Member for Anson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You can't. Of course, you can't.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Let him hear me out and then he will see how ridiculous his argument is. What we are doing now is in anticipation of the earlier amendment Bill being assented to. It is assumed that assent will be given and following that, assent will also be given to this Bill. Of course, it will be wrong, for example, today after the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has been passed and before the President gives his assent that we co-opt three persons immediately to sit in this Chamber as Members of Parliament without constituency, because we would put into effect something which assent has not been given. We are not doing anything of that son. What we have passed will not be law until the President gives his assent. This is like taking action in advance. And we have earlier passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. What is so unconstitutional or legally not correct about it if, following the passage of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill today, we go through this Bill? This is a very simple commonsense kind of thinking. One does not need a law qualification to understand this simple commonsense approach.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I will now put the Question. The Question is that the word "now" proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I claim a division, Mr Deputy Speaker.

An hon. Member: Don't waste time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Would you like a show of hands?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. I claim a division, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Take a division.

The House divided: Aye, 1; Noes, 54; Abstention, 1. Noes Noes (contd.) Abbas Abu Amin Ong Teng Cheong Ahmad Mattar Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ang Kok Peng Ow Chin Hock Chai Chong Yii Rohan bin Kamis Chandra Das, S. Saidi Haji Shariff Chau Sik Ting Seah Mui Kok Bernard Chen Selvadurai, P. Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Sia Kah Hui Chin Harn Tong Sia Khoon Seong Ch'ng Jit Koon Sidek bin Saniff Chua Sian Chin Tan Cheng Bock Dhanabalan, S. Tan Keng Yam, Tony Fong Sip Chee Tang See Chim Goh Chee Wee Tay Eng Soon Goh Chok Tong Teh Cheang Wan Ho Kah Leong Teo Chong Tee Ho See Beng Wan Hussin Zoohri Jabbar, M.K.A. Wan Soon Bee Jayakumar, S. Wong Kwei Cheong Koh Lip Lin Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Lai Tha Chai Yeo Choo Kok Lau Ping Sum Yeo Ning Hong Lau Teik Soon Yeo Toon Chia Lee Chiaw Meng Lee Khoon Choy Lee Yiok Seng Aye Lee Yock Suan Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lew Kok Pun Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Abstention Ong Pang Boon Hwang Soo Jin

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question now is the Original Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: You have already spoken, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I want to speak on the question now.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Well, you have already spoken.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I moved an amendment to the question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is the same. I am afraid I cannot give you another opportu- nity. You have already spoken twice on the same question. Will you please sit down? You have already spoken.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But may I explain, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not think there is any explanation necessary here. It is quite clear. You have already spoken. Please. Will you please resume your seat?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, surely I should be heard.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Well, you have been heard twice already earlier on. Please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I was heard on the amendment that I moved, but not on this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Your amendment arose on the original question. You have already spoken. Please. Will you please ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you are denying me any say in this House, I will sit down.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is the Original Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I claim a division.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The result has already been announced. I am afraid I cannot call for a division.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee; reponed without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Deputy Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Prof. Jayakumar: Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to speak now, on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: You intend to speak on the contents specifically?

Mr Jeyaretnam: On the principle, not on the contents.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The principle. That is only allowed at the Second Reading stage.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am afraid I cannot flex the rule. We have gone far enough. Today you have spoken twice on it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But I am allowed to speak on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Well, if you are speaking specifically on the contents of the Bill, yes, I will allow you, clause by clause. Which clause are you going to speak on?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, on the whole contents of the Bill; the principle of the whole Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: In that case, I am sorry. Will you please resume your seat? That is at the Second Reading Stage which we have passed. Will you please take your seat?

Question put "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I claim a division, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have our Standing Orders.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Well, if you want to waste more time of the House. Do you want to waste more time?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am being denied a say in this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay, ring the bells, if you want to waste time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am being denied my rights.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 50; No, 1; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (contd.) Abbas Abu Amin Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ang Kok Peng Ow Chin Hock Chai Chong Yii Rohan bin Kamis Chandra Das, S. Saidi Haji Shariff Chau Sik Ting Seah Mui Kok Bernard Chen Selvadurai, P. Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Sia Khoon Seong Chin Harn Tong Sidek bin Saniff Ch'ng Jit Koon Tan Cheng Bock Chua Sian Chin Tan Keng Yam, Tony Dhanabalan, S. Tang See Chim Fong Sip Chee Tay Eng Soon Goh Chee Wee Teh Cheang Wan Goh Chok Tong Teo Chong Tee Ho Kah Leong Wan Hussin Zoohri Ho See Bong Wan Soon Bee Jabbar, M.K.A. Wong Kwei Cheong Jayakumar, S. Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Koh Lip Lin Yeo Choo Kok Lai Tha Chai Yeo Ning Hong Lau Ping Sum Yeo Toon Chia Lau Teik Soon Lee Chiaw Meng Lee Yiok Seng No Lee Yock Suan Jeyaretnam, J.B. Liew Kok Pun Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Abstention Ong Teng Cheong Hwang Soo Jin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third time and passed.